Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN OFFICE, DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES (REFORMS).

Mr. Cary: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is yet in a position to make a statement about the reform of the diplomatic service?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. In January last I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Sir M. Robertson), who himself had a distinguished career in the Diplomatic Service and has since had notable business experience, to assist me in the inquiries I have been making into the future organisation of the Foreign Service. My right hon. Friend has now made his recommendations, with which I agree, and His Majesty's Government have decided to introduce a series of reforms which will result in the creation of. one combined Foreign Service, embracing the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic and Consular Services. In this Service, which will be separated from the Home Civil Service, the highest posts will be open to all members.

Viscountess Astor: And women?

Mr. Eden: All members. The system of entry will be revised with the objects of widening the field of selection and of making the Service more representative. The proposed reforms also include provision for ensuring to Heads of our Missions expert advice on commercial and financial, as well as on military matters, and on social and labour questions. They provide for the encouragement of officers with a specialised knowledge of eastern countries. They provide also for improving administration in the new Foreign Service. The financial reforms

aim at encouraging the entry of men without private means and at increasing efficiency by permitting the retirement on pension of men who have shown themselves unsuited for the highest posts. I shall be asking the House to approve proposals to give effect to these financial changes.
Hon. Members will realise that many of the details of the above reforms have still to be worked out. Moreover they cannot all be brought into effect at once. I have thought it right, however, to acquaint the House with the general lines upon which the Government has decided that action shall be taken. In making this announcement, I should like to pay tribute to the able and devoted work performed by our Diplomatic and Consular staffs at home and abroad, in the face of great difficulties. To-day, and after the war, a Foreign Service of exceptional efficiency is necessary if our diplomacy is to be as effective as it should be, and I am convinced that the reforms which I propose will not only increase efficiency, but will also make our diplomacy more representative of the country as a whole.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my right. hon. Friend, while appreciating the statement he has made, indicating very necessary reforms, whether in connection with the appointment of commercial attaches and commercial counselors, he will take care to select persons who have trade and industrial experience?

Mr. Eden: Yes, that is what I had in mind both in respect of those advisers and labour advisers.

Captain McEwen: Can my right hon. Friend inform me whether consideration has been given to the idea of setting up a body in the nature of a staff college to act as a sieve in order to provide an élite for the appointments to the higher posts?

Mr. Eden: I do not know whether I would describe it as a staff college, but it is the intention that the Secretary of State shall be advised by a special body in respect of these appointments, and that that advisory body shall be in continuous existence.

Viscountess Astor: Do the Government still intend to keep women out of the foreign and diplomatic and consulate services, and if so could the right hon.


Gentleman tell us why, considering the appalling failure which has been made by so many members of the foreign and diplomatic and consulate services?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend has raised another question from those with which I was dealing. I think if we get on with these reforms, which I hope she will approve, we may be able to see light in the sense she wants.

Mr. Shinwell: What is the nature of the advisory body to which the right hon. Gentleman refers? Will it be thoroughly representative?

Mr. Eden: It will be in the Service, of course.

Mr. Shinwell: Will it be confined to the Service?

Mr. Gallacher: Try a few working men.

Oral Answers to Questions — SYRIA.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the position in Syria?

Mr. Eden: I have nothing to add to the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

FIGHTER AND BOMBER COMMANDS (GROUP CAPTAINS).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many group captains in charge of fighter command or bomber command stations have not had practical operational experience prior to the out break of war, and since the outbreak of war, respectively?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I regret that it would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for. In selecting officers for these appointments full account is taken of experience during service careers.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that there is considerable uneasiness among serving officers at some of the recent appointments, because it is said that some of the officers appointed have not had operational experience?

Sir A. Sinclair: I can assure my hon. Friend that he is mistaken in thinking there is any widespread uneasiness. Recent operational experience, and especially operational experience in this war, is certainly an important factor in considering officers for these appointments.

Mr. Stokes: But is it a condition of appointments that they should have had operational experience?

Sir A. Sinclair: I cannot add to what I have said, but it is an important factor to be taken into account.

PERSONNEL (RESERVE).

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether there is now any delay in the calling up of volunteers for flying duties with the Royal Air Force?

Sir A. Sinclair: It is essential to maintain a reserve of personnel selected for flying duties in order to ensure an adequate and regulated flow to the training schools. The extent of the reserve necessarily varies from time to time, as it is influenced by such factors as weather and the rate of war wastage. Candidates accepted for air crew duties are in consequence enlisted in advance of the dates at which they are required for training and are placed for a time on deferred service during which they remain in civil life. Alternatively, they may elect to enter the Service forthwith for ground duties and instruction until their turn comes for flying training.

Mr. Granville: Has there not been a number of reports that young men who have volunteered have been kept waiting for a number of months, and can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this was not due to lack of instruction or training machines, not only here but in the case of preliminary training in the Dominions?

Sir A. Sinclair: There are a great many factors which may make for delay. I referred here to delay on the one hand and to acceleration on the other. There is war wastage, which may at one moment lead to acceleration in appointments, and there is the weather, which, as I told the House frankly in my Estimates speech, led last winter to delay. It is certainly our desire to absorb these recruits as quickly as possible, but they are all volunteers—all men who have joined air crews are volunteers—and we have to


take them when they volunteer. We cannot plan their entry into the Service as we can when we are dealing with other classes.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman give his attention to this matter again, because there is great disappointment among these young men on account of this long delay?

Sir A. Sinclair: I do realise that, and we have the matter constantly under review. We have made an arrangement, to which I have referred, for their training in the interval. Let me add that the Air Training Corps helps in this matter, and we have informed these young men that we hope they will join the Air Training Corps, in which they can get a considerable amount of preparatory training.

AERODROMES (DEFENCE).

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether all ranks of the ground staff of British aerodromes, at home and abroad, receive elementary weapon training in order to protect themselves and reinforce the aerodrome guard if they are subjected to attack by parachute troops as they were in Crete?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir.

Colonel Evans: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to a report in the "Times" from an officer serving in Crete that when the aerodrome was attacked the ground staff, who had never held a rifle in their lives, gallantly came to the assistance of the military defending the aerodrome? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that if they had had some extra training they would have given a better account of themselves than they did?

Sir A. Sinclair: The answer is that the recruits' course includes 13 hours of weapon training, and musketry training, of course, as well.

Colonel Evans: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that 13 hours of weapon training is sufficient?

Sir A. Sinclair: I referred to bayonet training, because the hon. and gallant Member referred in his Question to bayonet training.

Mr. Woodburn: May I ask whether there is close co-operation with the Army

in the defence of aerodromes or whether that is entirely a matter for the Air Force?

Sir A. Sinclair: It is certainly a matter in which we work in close co-operation with the Army. While the actual defence of the station is in the hands of the station commander, the defence of the aerodrome itself falls within the zone of defence under the military commander, and therefore the defence of the aerodrome is primarily an Army responsibility.

OFFICER'S BROADCAST.

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the broadcast of Air-Commodore A. V. Goddard, on 22nd May, to the effect that air-borne forces will not capture Crete, and the invasion is a measure of Nazi frustration; and whether such an assertion was made with the approval of the Air Staff?

Sir A. Sinclair: This officer was expressing his own views and not those of the Air Staff.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is desirable occasionally for independent as well as officially inspired commentaries to be made on the war situation?

Sir A. Sinclair: I think the hon. Member would agree that independent commentaries are not a matter for me but are rather for the Ministry of Information to arrange. We have done our best to assist the Ministry of Information. This officer undertook this duty voluntarily, as a public service, in addition to his ordinary work.

Mr. Shinwell: Will these views be conveyed to the Prime Minister, in view of what he said in his speech yesterday?

Sir A. Sinclair: Which views?

Mr. Shinwell: The views about commentaries of this kind by Air-Commodore Goddard being expressed which are not related to all the facts. Is it not desirable to have independent and not always officially inspired commentaries?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir. I will certainly see that the Prime Minister is informed.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend think it very undesirable, on balance, for serving officers to make speeches on the wireless?

Mr. George Griffiths: Should it not be definitely stated, when these gentlemen are making speeches, that the speeches are independent and are not Government speeches, because all such speeches have, in the past, been thought to be Government statements?

Sir A. Sinclair: Surely the reverse should be the understanding, that speeches on the wireless are supposed to be delivered independently. It is a mistake to think that they are delivered on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the great mass of the people thought that this gentleman was speaking for the Air Council or for a larger body, and will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to see that it is made clear beyond doubt that the man was expressing only his personal opinion?

Sir A. Sinclair: In view of yesterday's Debate and of the Questions which have been put this morning, it will be made abundantly clear that these are independent statements.

AMERICAN AIRCRAFT (DELIVERIES).

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he is satisfied that the present organisation to deal with the arrival, assembly and modification of American aircraft is adequate to allow the maximum number of these machines to be available for operational flying without undue delay?

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): No, Sir, but all steps are being taken to ensure that the organisation is expanded, as necessary, to deal with the increased deliveries expected.

Mr. Granville: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend assure the House that there is no bottle-neck with regard to this matter? Does he not think it would be worth while to institute a separate organisation of men who understand American aircraft and American methods, so that there will be no undue delay before these aircraft are flying in the war?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: By implication I have conveyed to my hon. Friend that there is a bottle-neck. What he suggests is being done.

Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that there is no waiting about in aircraft production for the mechanic, the labourer or the raw material?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

BRITISH ISRAEL WORLD FEDERATION.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that a document issued by the British Israel World Federation states that if he is satisfied that, in the opinion of a large and influential section of the community, the Federation is rendering an essential service of national importance, he may relax certain restrictions in favour of the Federation; what promise has been given to this Federation in this direction; and whether he is aware that, as a result of this promise, hon. Members have been subjected to a circularising campaign?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am aware of the document, but I have made no promise of any kind to the Federation, and I am not responsible for the circularising campaign on which the Federation has seen fit to embark.

Sir H. Williams: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that, in the document which accompanies the so-called declaration, there is a statement that a promise has been made, apparently by the Ministry of Information and the Ministry of Supply, that if they got enough support, they would have certain privileges?

Mr. Cooper: No such promise, and no other promise, has been made whatever by the Ministry of Information.

MEMBER'S BROADCAST.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Information on what grounds he chose the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. V. Bartlett) to broadcast a postcript on Sunday, 25th May, 1941?

Mr. Cooper: The hon. Member was selected because he was, and is, regarded as eminently suitable for the task.

Mr. Liddall: Did my right hon. Friend approve of the hon. Member for Bridgwater taking advantage of this postcript to boost his friend and comrade, Jack Priestley?

PUBLIC OPINION (INQUIRIES).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Information why it was that, on the day following the decision of the House to reject the Government's proposal to open theatres and music halls on Sundays, the headquarters of his Ministry directed their regional representatives to report immediately on the reaction of public opinion to the Parliamentary proceedings, and to inform the Ministry of observations and comments by the public?

Mr. Cooper: The direction referred to in the Question was sent out, without reference to higher authority, by an official who is no longer a member of the Ministry of Information. The matter was not one of the kind which usually forms the subject of inquiry by regional information officers, and had the matter been referred to higher authority the direction would not have been issued.

Sir P. Hurd: How does it come about that a letter of this sort is sent out by a representative of the Ministry of Information without the knowledge of the head of the Department? Is my right hon. Friend aware that these inquests, held in secret by representatives of the Ministry in the constituencies, on Parliamentary doings, are most offensive to Members of the House?

Mr. Cooper: I have explained in my reply that this was an inquiry which, in the opinion of myself and my advisers, should not have gone out. Perhaps hon. Members who have in mind further Supplementary Questions will await my reply to the hon. Member's next Question.

Colonel Evans: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, when there is any doubt in his mind about feeling in the constituencies, he will see the Members of Parliament concerned and ask for their views on the matter?

Mr. Cooper: I frequently consult Members of Parliament and ask their opinions, and I am glad if hon. Members will be good enough to give me their opinions and ask me what confirmatory or other information I possess on the subject.

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Minister of Information on what Parliamentary decisions and public matters, besides the Sunday opening of theatres and music halls, the Ministry have directed their regional representatives to sound public

opinion in their areas; what use is made of these reports by the Ministry; and what is the purpose of the Ministry in intervening with the public in Parliamentary matters which are the concern of the elected representatives of the people?

Mr. Cooper: It has been the duty and the practice of the Ministry since its inception to keep itself informed of public opinion on all matters connected with the prosecution of the war. With this object in view, a very large number of inquiries have been made from time to time, of which it would be hardly possible to give a list. My hon. Friend can rest assured that such inquiries have never been designed to interfere in any way with decisions arrived at by the House of Commons.

Sir P. Hurd: May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman that, in future, there will be no repetition of the sort of inquest to which I called attention just now?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir, that particular matter was not one, as I have already said, on which I thought there ought to be an inquiry. Similar subjects will not be inquired into in future.

Mr. Thorne: How can the right hon. Gentleman keep himself informed of public opinion when, as a matter of fact, 50 per cent. of the people do not bother about anything at all?

PRISONERS OF WAR (CENSORSHIP OF LETTERS).

Sir William Davison: asked the Minister of Information whether he can now inform the House as to the result of his inquiries with regard to recent complaints that criticism of the British Red Cross in letters between prisoners of war and their relatives in Great Britain have been blacked-out by the British censor; and in what circumstances, and by whose authority, has the action referred to above been taken by the British censor?

Mr. Cooper: The War Office, in order that no unnecessary anxiety should be caused to relatives, from time to time, recommended to the Chief Postal Censor the deletion of passages in letters which contained criticism of the Red Cross that was clearly ill-founded and showed complete ignorance of the facts. The question has, however, been further considered and instructions given that in future these deletions will not be made.

STAFF.

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Minister of Information what is the present staff at his Ministry; and how many men and women of age-groups already called up are now employed there?

Mr. Cooper: The staff of the Ministry, excluding the Postal and Telegraph Censorship, numbered 1,801 on 31st May, 1941. Of these, 290 are men born in the years 1904 to 1922 and 90 women born in 1919 and 1920.

Sir P. Hurd: Why are they not called up? Why are they kept at the Ministry when so many of them might be doing other service for the country?

Mr. Cooper: Civil servants are in a reserved occupation. A great many of them have received their notices, but they have not yet been called up. In only nine cases have exemptions been applied for.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Does not Goebbels regard his Ministry as the most important part of the army service?

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Minister of Information what numbers of employés are engaged in the working of the British Broadcasting Corporation at a town of which he is aware; how many of them are British subjects by birth; how many are over military age; how much billeting allowance is paid for them; whether they have any London residence or not; and what are the hours of work and what leave is given?

Mr. Cooper: It has not been possible, in the short time available since this Question appeared on the Order Paper, to complete the necessary inquiries, but I will communicate to my hon. Friend the information asked for as soon as it is received.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Will it be circulated?

BROADCASTS (PUBLICATION).

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Information whether he will arrange for all, or some, of the broad casts, "Lift up your hearts," at 7.55 a.m., to be printed and published?

Mr. Cooper: Two volumes of selections from these broadcasts have been published, and a third is in preparation. The

title is "A Thought for To-day," and the publisher is Frederick Muller, Ltd.

ARCHBISHOP OF FREIBURG (PASTORAL).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Information what steps he has taken to give the widest publicity possible both inside Germany and throughout the world to the statement of the Catholic Archbishop of Freiburg that there are two rival and incompatible philosophies in Germany and, by implication, repudiating Nazi conceptions and policy?

Mr. Cooper: Attention has been drawn to the Archbishop of Freiburg's statement on several occasions in suitable broadcasts to Germany. References to and quotations from the pastoral have been cabled to many other parts of the world, while copies of the text have been widely distributed.

Mr. Sorensen: Has every effort been made to broadcast throughout Germany by some means this part of the Archbishop's pastoral, so as to make it clear that there is a movement in Germany which is distinctly anti-Nazi?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir, every effort has been made to give this pastoral the widest possible circulation, but if the hon. Member has any suggestion for other ways of doing so, I shall be very glad to receive it.

Viscountess Astor: Is it possible to make it known in America, where, I am told, there is great opposition to the war in these quarters?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir, it has been circulated in America.

Viscountess Astor: You ought to tell the Pope, too.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DAMAGE (POST OFFICE APPARATUS).

Mr. Crowder: asked the Postmaster-General whether telephone subscribers and private circuit renters will have to insure Post Office apparatus on their premises under the War Damage Act, 1941?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The Post Office will not make any claims against telephone subscribers or private wire renters in respect of war damage to Post Office apparatus on their premises and accordingly they will not


need to, and should not, insure such apparatus under the War Damage Act, 1941.

Oral Answers to Questions — GLASS SUBSTITUTES.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings what specific temporary substitutes for glass are being recommended by his Department; and what such substitutes are being used in window-repair work at the House of Commons?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): No recommendations in regard to specific temporary substitutes for glass are issued by my Department. The translucent substitutes being used in window repair work at the House of Commons consist partly of impregnated fabric and partly of plastic film with metal reinforcement.

Sir T. Moore: Would it not be a good idea if the hon. Gentleman's Department would circulate to the public details of what, in their opinion, is the most efficient substitute, so as to prevent the public being deluded by the useless material which at present is being used?

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDINGS (PASSIVE DEFENCE).

Mr. Salt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings with what scientific institutions of the building industry his Department is in regular consultation on the practical aspects of passive defence and through what channels?

Mr. Hicks: My Department, through its technical officers, is in regular consultation, either with the Research and Experiments Branch of the Ministry of Home Security, or with the appropriate branch of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, on all practical aspects of passive defence. These Departments have at their disposal any expert advice connected with this problem which may be offered by the building industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOSS OF HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "HOOD."

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if

he is able to state whether the "Hood" was lost owing to the same defect in construction, or lack of armament, as the battle cruiser at Jutland; and whether steps have been taken to provide against a similar danger in ships now in commission and in all now under construction?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): The cause of the loss of His Majesty's Ship "Hood" is at present under investigation. A special inquiry is being made into the technical questions referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, and until this has been completed the second part of the Question cannot be answered.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA (DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made by the West Indian comptroller and adviser in the study of social and economic conditions in British Guiana; and, in view of the unsatisfactory condition of the territory, will be cause early action to be taken to overhaul and improve the arrangements in this territory?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): The Comptroller for Development and Welfare has submitted to the Governor of British Guiana his views on the development and welfare work which should be undertaken in that Colony, where he and his staff have very recently concluded their investigations. These include important recommendations on which it is now for the Governor to submit formal applications for assistance under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. The attention of Colonial Governments has recently been drawn to the desirability of speed in framing and submitting applications for assistance under the Act, and certain suggestions were made to them as regards procedure which I am confident will obviate any avoidable delay.

Mr. Creech Jones: May I ask my hon. Friend if he will give some attention to the inadequacy of the machinery of government in this particular Colony, and to the fact that there are very considerable economic and social problems to be tackled, as well as to the inadequacy of the existing arrangements to cope with those problems?

Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Comptroller and his staff were appointed for the purpose of dealing with those problems, and he will see from my reply that the Controller has visited the Colony and his recommendations are now being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (COMMUNAL FORESTS).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under- Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress can be recorded in the establishment of communal forest areas in Nigeria; and what steps are being taken to encourage this development?

Mr. George Hall: As no recent information is available, the Governor has been asked for a report, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend when it is received.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD (DEVEPOPMENT AND WELFARE).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the surplus revenue in Trinidad and the substantial direct gifts by that colony to the British war effort as well as the large contribution to the British Exchequer from taxation on the profits of the Trinidad oil companies, he will consult the local government and the West Indian development controller on the inauguration of a comprehensive social and economic development programme to remedy social conditions, poverty and disease revealed in recent commissions; and whether big reserve funds will be created to further this purpose and substantial sums earmarked by the British Treasury?

Mr. George Hall: The satisfactory financial position of Trinidad has made it possible to proceed, within the limits imposed by war conditions, with the comprehensive programme of social and economic betterment inaugurated before the war. Housing and hospital improvement are in particular receiving attention. It will be open to the Trinidad Government to apply for assistance under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. and no doubt the Government is in consultation in the matter with the Comptroller for Development and Welfare, who is at present in Trinidad. In the circum-

stances, my Noble Friend does not consider it necessary that special sums should be put to reserve for these purposes.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the very great generosity of the Government of Trinidad towards the war effort, would it not be desirable, in view of the very squalid and miserable social conditions revealed in the report on Trinidad, to earmark certain of those sums of money for special social development work either now or when the war is over, and would it be possible for certain large sums of money coming from the taxation on the profits of the oil companies to be earmarked for return to the colony for social development when the war is over?

Mr. Hall: There again my hon. Friend will see that the Comptroller has power to make recommendations for dealing with the difficulties to which he refers. The Colonial Development and Welfare Act will provide the necessary funds for any recommendations made by the Comptroller.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES (UNDESIRABLE PUBLICATIONS).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies what prosecutions have taken place under the Undesirable Literature Ordinance, and in what colonies, and the nature of the punishments imposed; whether any of the offending publications are on sale in this country, and, if so, which?

Mr. George Hall: There is no general "Undesirable Literature Ordinance," as is suggested by my hon. Friend. Each colony has separate legislation on the subject. Much labour would be necessary here and in the colonies to compile the particulars asked for, and I regret that in present circumstances it is not possible for it to be undertaken.

Mr. Adams: If I indicate the particular colonies concerned, will the hon. Gentleman obtain the information?

Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (AGRICULTURE).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the complaints in Palestine


that, as a result of the growing shortage of labour in the mixed farming settlements, there is a curtailment in the agriculture production of the country and that there is a dearth of skilled workers essential for the war effort in Palestine; and whether additional immigration certificates will now be granted to relieve the seriousness of this situation?

Mr. George Hall: I have no information that the position is as stated in this Question, but the High Commissioner for Palestine is being asked for a report, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend when it is received.

Mr. Adams: In view of the alleged urgency of the matter, has the High Commissioner been asked by cable?

Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS, LONDON (BOMBING).

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give the number of hospitals in London which the Nazis have not bombed?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend this figure.

Sir T. Moore: Would it not be a good idea for the Government to consider putting a few German prisoners in those which are left in the hope of avoiding further damage?

Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the figures I am going to send him, perhaps if he then wants to put forward any suggestions, he will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).

Sir Adam Maitland: asked the. Minister of Health whether he will accept the principle that when any town has suffered severe injury by "enemy action involving the destruction of or serious injury to buildings the consequent loss of rate revenue shall be borne nationally and not locally?

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health whether the Government have given consideration to the need for giving

financial assistance to local authorities whose rate income has decreased rapidly owing to damage by enemy air attacks; and whether he proposes to issue a White Paper on this subject in order to clarify the position?

Miss Horsbrugh: The policy of the Government in giving financial assistance to local authorities whose resources are severely strained through loss of rate revenue caused by enemy action was explained in the answer given to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Tam-worth (Sir J. Mellor) on 13th May, and I have nothing to add to that reply.

Sir A. Maitland: Is the hon. Lady aware that local authorities throughout the country are not at all satisfied with the position, and as the principle involved is an equitable principle, will the matter be reconsidered?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think my hon. Friend will agree that there is not so much disagreement as to the principle, which is that if local authorities cannot maintain their essential services without increasing rates to an unreasonable figure, then assistance is given. There may have been difficulties in particular cases in regard to carrying out that principle, and my right hon. Friend will look into any cases of that kind.

Sir A. Maitland: Is the hon. Lady aware that in fact the method at present being followed is one under which the local authorities have to plead poverty in making out their case instead of having their claim considered as a matter of right?

Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. Gentleman says the local authority has to make out its case and plead poverty. Of course, they get assistance from the State because they are poor, and they will naturally have to put up figures. If those figures show that they cannot carry on without increasing the rates, assistance will be given.

Viscountess Astor: Should not assistance to relieve the effects of a national calamity be treated as a national burden, and surely those towns which have been almost completely wiped out should be helped?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think the noble Lady will agree that they are being


helped, not only in the case of bombing, but also in the case of fire and evacuation. I think the Noble Lady will agree that the principle is right that those authorities should be helped, and my right hon. Friend has given that undertaking. Already a great many authorities are being helped.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Are not such local authorities poor because they are in the front line of the Battle of Britain?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

NON COMBATANT CORPS (MILITARY TRAINING).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an assurance that the military training given to members of the Royal Army Pay Corps and other non-combatant services is adequate to enable them to defend themselves against such enemy attacks as they may reasonably be expected to have to face?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): As I stated in my answer on 28th May, personnel of the Royal Army Pay Corps and similar Corps receive the maximum amount of training in the use of arms that is compatible with the proper performance of their special duties.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask whether the answer my hon. Friend has just given has taken into account recent events in Crete?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, it has.

EDUCATION.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for War how much was spent on Army education during the six months preceding the end of the last financial year; what proportion of this was expended on vocational courses; and what proportion on the provision of classes and lectures arranged through regional committees for adult education?

Mr. Law: I regret that precise figures are not available. But, excluding the cost of the Army Educational Corps, which amounted during the six months preceding the end of the last financial year to about £50,000, the total expenditure during this period on the scheme for education in the

war-time Army was approximately £30,000. Of this, about £11,000 represents the cost of the provision of lectures and classes through the regional committees for adult education, and some £1,500 was spent on vocational courses. The cost of these two particular items is low in relation to the work done, since well over half the lecturers claimed no fee for their services and much of the work on the vocational correspondence courses was done without remuneration. I should like to take this opportunity to express the Army's gratitude to those who have voluntarily contributed so much to the success of the education scheme.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will further efforts be made during the ensuing winter to enlarge this educational programme?

Mr. Law: Certainly; it is being constantly developed.

EQUIPMENT (POLISHING).

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is now the general rule that soldiers stationed in this country must keep the brasses on their fighting equipment polished; and, if so, why is this the practice in a country which may at any time be invaded?

Mr. Law: Existing instructions provide that all webbing equipment, brasses, and other brass parts of arms and equipment used or worn, or likely to be used or worn, by troops during active service operations should be left unpolished. If my hon. Friend knows of any case in which this instruction is being disobeyed, I shall be very glad to look into it.

RHEIN METAL GUNS.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Rhein metal guns of the 7.92 millimetres calibre are in our possession; and how many of them are being put to practical use?

Mr. Law: I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that it would not be in the national interest to publish details of this kind.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that several hundreds of these guns were captured last year, during the Battle of Britain, and that they are being hoarded by the Air Ministry, and are not being put to any use whatever?

Mr. Law: The fact is that I do not intend to tell the enemy what use they are being put to.

Mr. Stokes: But is it not a fact that they are not being used at all? That is the complaint.

WATER-DRINKING STATIONS, MIDDLE EAST.

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the many casualties from heat stroke in Iraq in the last war until water- drinking stations were established at frequent intervals and Command orders issued to ensure their fullest use; and whether corresponding steps have been taken in the present emergency?

Mr. Law: I am making inquiries into this point, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Sir F. Fremantle: Does my hon. Friend realise that no fewer than 100 people died in a single day in Iraq in the last war for lack of these facilities?

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange with the Board of Trade for the issue of free coupons for the purchase of clothing by relatives for despatch to prisoners of war?

Mr. Law: I am in touch with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on this matter.

Sir A. Knox: Does the hon. Member realise that this is the only source of clothing that these people have and that the clothing issued by the German Government is quite insufficient?

Mr. Law: No, Sir, this is not the only source. A great deal of clothing is being sent out by the Red Cross.

Sir A. Knox: But does the hon. Member realise that to supply such clothing would take 60 or 70 coupons?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

RESERVES.

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in order to prevent a repetition next winter of last winter's

coal scarcities, he is preparing, in collaboration with the Minister of Transport, a scheme for the organisation of coal dumps in every town and village?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): A scheme has been prepared for the laying down of reserves at widely distributed points all over the country, but a substantial increase in the present rate of production is needed if the sites which have been prepared are all to be filled during the summer. It would, however, be hardly practicable to have dumps in every town and village.

Mr. Bartlett: Are steps being taken, even with the reserves that we have, to see that they are distributed now, because of the possibility of a breakdown of communications later on?

Mr. Grenfell: Yes, Sir. I do not think there will be a shortage of sites. It is a question of finding supplies.

Mr. Buchanan: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Glasgow the reserves are being eaten into and stocks are not being built up? Will he see that something is done about that?

Mr. Grenfell: I have made investigations in Glasgow and they are not eating into reserves there at the present time.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Will the Minister pay more attention to getting the miners and the owners to produce more coal, in order to fill the dumps that are empty now?

Mr. Grenfell: I have seen the owners and the miners, and the campaign for production is proceeding. I have warned the House and everybody concerned that we shall need large quantities of coal this summer. Pit committees and district committees are being set up, and we are promised the most active support. I am optimistic that, with that support, we shall get adequate quantities of coal this summer.

COLLIERY EXPLOSIONS.

Mr. Pearson: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give any information as to the colliery explosion on 2nd June at Ynysmardy Colliery, Llan-trisant; the latest figures of men killed and injured; and what measures are being instituted to discover the cause of the explosion?

Mr. Grenfell: I regret to say that four persons were killed and three injured, all at the surface of the mine. The circumstances are extraordinary. No work was going on below ground but a very violent explosion occurred, apparently at or near the top of the No. 2 Shaft, and wrecked or damaged most of the surface works. The cause of the explosion is being closely investigated under the direction of the Divisional Inspector of Mines and with expert help. I am sure the House would like to join with me in an expression of sympathy which I have caused to be sent to the bereaved relatives and the injured men.

Mr. T. Smith: Will an official inquiry take place into the explosion; and when will my hon. Friend be in a position to tell us something of the unfortunate explosion at Whitehaven?

Mr. Grenfell: The explosion at White-haven occurred the following day, and without having been given notice of this Question I can recall that eight men were killed and 13 injured. Three of the injured have since died, making a total of 11. The cause of the explosion is also unknown, and a complete investigation will be made.

Mr. Smith: Will an ordinary official inquiry be made?

Mr. Grenfell: My hon. Friend can rest assured that a special investigation will be ordered for Whitehaven. Meanwhile, I would invite the House to join with me in sending to the bereaved a message similar to the one which was sent after the Llan-trisant explosion.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINION PRIME MINISTERS (CO-OPERATION).

Mr. Granville: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent declarations by Dominion statesmen with regard to Dominion representation in London, he is now prepared to invite Mr. Menzies and other Dominion statesmen to visit London for the purpose of a meeting of the Imperial War Council?

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether any approaches have been made to or by the Governments of the Dominions, in regard to the formation of an Imperial War Cabinet, or whether he

has given further consideration to this question in the light of recent events in the Mediterranean?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I should warmly welcome a meeting of Dominion Prime Ministers should this be found possible, and I am, of course, in constant correspondence with them. The House will, I am sure, realise that each Dominion is differently circumstanced in this matter, and that it may not be easy to arrange for all the Dominion Prime Ministers to visit this country at the same time.

Mr. Granville: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the recent statement by the Australian Prime Minister and other political leaders in Australia; and will he take fully into consideration the strong public opinion which desires a more direct representation in the conduct of the war?

The Prime Minister: I think matters had better be treated generally in relation to all the Dominions. But I have noticed various statements.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the fact that there is an Imperial General Staff in existence to direct military operations, and that there is already an Imperial Defence Committee to direct strategy, surely it is logical that there should be an Imperial War Cabinet to direct the whole war effort?

The Prime Minister: That is a very large question, and I am not prepared to deal with it now. I think it would be very desirable to have an Imperial Conference to see what could be arranged, but it is not easy to have an Imperial Conference. We must remember that these Dominion Prime Ministers are persons of the highest consequence in their own countries, that they have the highest affairs to settle and legislatures to wait upon constantly. It is not easy for them to find the opportunity, much as they would wish to do so; but if we can get them here in the course of the summer or the autumn these matters can be discussed. Meanwhile, they are not much helped by questions of this sort.

Mr. Shinwell: In order to clear this matter up, may we be told whether in fact there have been any official requests from the Dominions, either individually or collectively, for the formation of a War Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I have seen no official request of that kind.

Mr. Granville: Would my right hon. Friend accept the assurance that there is a considerable public opinion which requires this, but which does not desire to bicker or to hinder the Prime Minister in the conduct of the war? Will he bear in mind that I am merely following the writings and the precepts of Winston Churchill?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that at times that gentleman was very annoying.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not a fact that in the last war the Dominions and Colonie, did not press for an Imperial War Cabinet, but that the initiative came from the Government here? Will the right hon. Gentleman satisfy the country that this Government will do all it can to have an Imperial War Cabinet, because I am perfectly certain that until he does so there will be great dissatisfaction?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

SCOTTISH VENISON.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether steps have yet been taken to popularise and supply Scottish venison in English urban areas, as a supplemental meat ration, during the coming autumn?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): The supply of Scottish venison is limited. Difficulties of transport make it necessary for this meat to be consumed near the places of production, and arrangements are being discussed with the forest owners and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.

RATION BOOKS.

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (1) why two ration books are being issued at this time; the reason for the supplementary or spare book; and the estimated cost involved;
(2) Why no counterfoils appear in the new ration book R.B. 1 (4); if food committees were consulted before the change was made; and what counterfoils it is proposed to use to check the number of

registered customers a retailer has on his register?

Major Lloyd George: The new ration book had to be designed at the end of last year. In order to be ready for a wider extension of rationing than was then contemplated, the preparation of a supplement to the ration book became necessary, and it is economical to issue the book and the supplement together although all the pages in the latter will not be required for immediate use. Counterfoils were omitted from the new book because it was felt at the time that compulsory re-registration could be dispensed with. Food control committees were not directly consulted in the matter, but the decision had the full support at the time of divisional food officers and food executive officers who were consulted and of retail trades associations. Large scale movements of population have, however, made a complete re-registration necessary, and counterfoils for this purpose have been provided in the supplement. The estimated cost of the supplement is £47,975.

Mr. McKinlay: Is it not a fact that the inaccurate R.G.23(a) voluntary registration in February is one of the major causes for the method adopted at the moment?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir, I do not accept that for a moment. The position is as stated in my answer.

Mr. McKinlay: Is it not the fact that food executives throughout the country believe that this is just another example of official waste?

FISH TRADE (NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the great concern that is being felt at the long delay in an agreement being arrived at with the fish industry which will bring about a substantial reduction in the present high price of fish; and will he either announce an agreement now or bring forward a scheme of his own without further delay?

Mr. Parker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, what action he now proposes to take to rationalise the fish trade?

Major Lloyd George: Negotiations with the fish trade are nearing completion, and I hope to be able to make a statement next week.

Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a very strong public demand that the price of fish should be controlled, and can we take it that it will definitely be controlled from next week?

Major Lloyd George: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until next week.

Mr. Robertson: Will my hon. and gallant Friend make it quite clear that the trade is in no way to blame for the delay, and that it is not their responsibility to control the price of fish?

MILK RESTRICTION

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the milk trade has expressed any view on the decision not to reduce individual milk supplies per day if the normal amount of supply is one pint or under; and, if so, whether he can state its nature?

Major Lloyd George: Members of the milk distributive trade have pointed out that the decision to exempt from the Milk Restriction Scheme households taking one pint or less of milk a day will result in a smaller saving of milk than had originally been anticipated. This was fully appreciated when the decision was taken to grant the concession which is designed to prevent hardship to small or poor consumers.

Mr. Parker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will revise the Milk Rationing Scheme so as to provide one pint of milk for all children under 16 years of age and half a pint for all adults?

Major Lloyd George: The present restriction scheme requires those consumers who are not in the priority categories to curtail their consumption by one-seventh as compared with the quantity purchased during the first week in March. Apart from this the scheme does not attempt to regulate liquid milk consumption. It would, however, be impossible to ration milk on the basis suggested by my hon. Friend as the quantity required to meet the suggestion ration, assuming that the whole of the ration was taken up, would be 50 per cent. in excess of the total milk production of the country at the period of the year when the milk output is at its lowest figure.

Sir Irving Albery: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the present basis of rationing is very unfair and inequitable?

Major Lloyd George: There is no rationing at the moment.

SHIPPING SPACE.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food how much shipping space was used last year for importing each of the following commodities: tobacco, wines and spirits, beer, and other goods not essential to the war effort; what quantity of foodstuffs he estimates could have been carried in the same space; and whether he intends to fix an amount by which these commodities must be reduced in order to ensure adequate space for food supplies?

Major Lloyd George: As previously stated in the House, publication of details relating to our trade statistics has been suspended in the national interest since the outbreak of the war. Consequently no reply can be given to the second part of my hon. Friend's Question. I may explain, however, that in 1940 beer was imported only from Eire in vessels specially constructed for the purpose, which are unsuitable for longer voyages. No wine is now being imported, except for church purposes, unless exporting countries are prepared to provide freight in their own vessels and to allocate a part of that freight for priority goods. The only spirits now being imported are rum for the Navy and Army and a certain amount of high-proof rum for the manufacture of gin. I understand that consideration is at present being given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the import programme for tobacco.

Viscountess Astor: Will not the hon. and gallant Gentleman consult his illustrious father to see the way in which he handled this trade during the last war, how he stood up—against the drink trade —for what was best for the country, and how he considered the country first and the trade afterwards?

Major Lloyd George: I think the Noble Lady will find that the present position compares very favourably with the position during the last war.

Viscountess Astor: It ought to be better; you are a younger and a more alert man.

PAMPHLET.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, why, in the pamphlet entitled "Ministry of Food, General Policy," half the printable space by area, and more than half by weight, is blank, as such a wasteful use of paper restricts the importation of food?

Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend and I explained in a covering note to the pamphlet to which my hon. Friend refers that the contents would need to be revised from time to time. We hope that hon. Members who find the pamphlet of value will use the vacant spaces for making supplementary notes pending the issue of a revised edition.

BRITISH RESTAURANTS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether community restaurants are being established at coalmining centres, and, if so, the number of these; and what steps are being taken to secure the benefits of these for mineworkers of the country where no such facilities exist?

Major Lloyd George: Plans for the establishment of British Restaurants at a number of towns in which the mining population predominates have been approved by the Ministry of Food, and I am informed that the question of the provision of British Restaurants in other mining areas is under active consideration. I am obtaining a list of the towns concerned and will send this to my hon. Friend as soon as possible. The responsibility for preparing schemes of British Restaurants has been entrusted to local authorities. The urgent attention of all authorities, including those in mining districts, has been drawn to the desirability of establishing British Restaurants. I am arranging that the matter shall again be specifically brought before local authorities in mining districts. The extension of pit-head canteens where food can be served for consumption either in the canteen or underground is also being pressed forward as a result of conferences between my Noble Friend, my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines and representatives of the Miners' Welfare Commission.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that at the present time there are certain men working at the coal face who have, to take what we call the snack bread, with boiled turnip between the bread for butter, and also bread and only a bit of jam, and that they cannot get coal on that?

Major Lloyd George: For that very reason they get eight ounces of cheese per week, which is not given to other people, except agricultural labourers.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, in places where there is no provision for canteens, unless the miners get more meat, it will be impossible for them to maintain their vitality in order to work coal?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are confined in many things by the supply position, and I think he will also appreciate that we have made an effort to meet the very points raised by my hon. Friends. We have done what we can, having regard to the supply situation; I only wish we could do more.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the Minister aware that at certain canteens miners can purchase only cups of tea, chewing-gum and a few biscuits?

Major Lloyd George: As far as the underground workmen are concerned, we have made this special arrangement with regard to cheese, and, as far as surface workers are concerned, we are trying to devise some method by which we can meet their requirements.

Sir A. Knox: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman note that other people as well as miners require food?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Why are not mobile canteens which are not at present in use sent to the pit tops in order to deal with the position?

Major Lloyd George: That is one of the things that we are considering at the moment.

Mr. Edwards: Why was not this thing considered two months ago?

Major Lloyd George: Mobile canteens are very important at the present time when there are likely to be heavy bombardments without warning in various


parts of the country, and we cannot disperse our canteens all over the country without very careful consideration.

HERRING.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the large proportion of fresh herring, sometimes amounting to one-third in weight, which have had to be destroyed recently, owing to delays in transit; that supplies from Stornoway, due at Glasgow on Friday, 30th May, did not arrive at Glasgow until 11 p.m. on the Saturday, when they were unusable; and whether, in view of the importance of making the most of home supplies, he will take steps to ensure more speedy deliveries of herring from the coast to inland markets?

Major Lloyd George: I am unable to obtain any confirmation of my hon. Friend's suggestion that a substantial proportion of recent landings of herring has become unusable through delays in transport, and no case as mentioned by my hon. Friend has been brought to my notice in which the proportion is as high as one-third. In the instance to which he refers, the bulk of the fish was usable in spite of late arrival in Glasgow through abnormal circumstances, though one merchant who took a small quantity states that 20 per cent. of his purchases were unusable. I can assure my hon. Friend that all possible steps are taken to minimise delays in transporting this exceedingly perishable commodity.

Mr. Cocks: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman seen the letter which I sent to him on the subject, in which it is alleged that one-third has been wasted in each case, and is he aware that another fish merchant has told me the same thing; and can he say whether the refrigerating vans for fresh fish traffic have been taken off the railways, and, if they have, is not that false economy?

Major Lloyd George: The particular case to which my hon. Friend refers is due to two causes. Usually these herring are kippered, and unfortunately there was a strike in the kippering industry which made it necessary to send a larger proportion as fresh herring, and that caused this particular difficulty. I do not think that it will occur again.

Mr. Robertson: Has the Minister taken into account the provision of cold storage at Stornoway? Would not that overcome the difficulty with regard to strikes and with regard to the sending of the fish in the latter part of the week, when they are bound to arrive late on Saturday, or even on Sunday, and go bad before there is an opportunity for sale?

Major Lloyd George: I assure my hon. Friend that, as far as transport arrangements are concerned, if it were not for quite abnormal circumstances, there would be no need to worry. I will look into the cold storage question, but ordinarily a large part of that fish happens to be kippered.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLISH NEWSPAPERS.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the shortage of newsprint, he has yet decided whether he can continue to provide newsprint for 13 Polish newspapers published in this country; and to what extent he proposes to reduce the number?

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): Two of these journals have ceased publication. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Information regarding the remainder. The need of the Polish forces and civilians now in this country for publications in their own language has, of course, to be borne in mind.

Mr. Lipson: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, will he bear in mind that, while paper was being provided for these newspapers, a unit of the Royal Air Force was denied newsprint for the continuation of its own publication, and ought not such a requirement be given consideration?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir, but, unfortunately, it is a question of the supply of paper.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the Minister put a stop to the publication of circulars?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOTWEAR.

Sir Reginald Garry: asked the Minister of Supply (1) whether his attention has been called to a request from the Newport Town Council, made at the


instigation of the boot and shoe manufacturers of Great Britain, that, in the interests of public health, there should be no curtailment of leather footwear for the civilian population, in spite of the heavy demands on leather made by his Department for Service use; and whether, in order to meet future civilian requirements, there is active and speedy cooperation between his Department and the boot manufacturers, to investigate and encourage the process of treatment to effect economy in the life of Army boots, reported upon in the Eleventh Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure;
(2)whether, in view of the urgent necessity of extending the life of Army boots, both on grounds of economy and to conserve supplies of leather, he is satisfied that adequate interest and activity warranted by the far-reaching possibilities has, and is being demonstrated by his Department in a process to treat Army boots referred to in the Eleventh Report of the Select Committee oh National Expenditure; and what steps he is taking to institute large-scale practical tests under conditions of actual wear with independent or unprejudiced supervision;
(3)whether, in connection with the Eleventh Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure on the subject of a special process for the treatment of Army boots to extend their life, he can give any explanation of the unsatisfactory and incomplete records referred to in the Report kept by his Department on an attempt to try out, under actual use conditions, a small number of boots; and why the inventor's proposal to bear the whole cost of a practical test on 1,000 pairs of boots, with an indemnity against possible damage to the boots, was not accepted nearly a year ago?

Sir A. Duncan: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has taken steps for the introduction of rationing and for the concentration of the boot and shoe industry, which involve some curtailment of the output of leather footwear for the civilian population. Owing to the necessity of conserving supplies of raw material, the quantity of leather available to the industry has had to be restricted, but every effort will be made to see that sufficient leather is available to make the footwear that will be required

in these circumstances. As regards the matter relating to Army boots to which my hon. Friend refers, arrangements are being made for extended tests on the lines endorsed by the Select Committee.

Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information with regard to the number of coupons required for boots? Is it necessary to have the same number of coupons for the best leather?

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS FACTORIES (WORKING DAY).

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Minister of Supply, in view of the great labour effort in the United States of America, whether any war munitions factories in this country are working a 24-hour day?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir. Numerous factories here are working either 24 hours a day on a three-shift basis or 20 hours or more a day on two long shifts.

Oral Answers to Questions — STOCK EXCHANGE, LONDON (CIRCULAR).

Mr. Banfield: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the report of the Royal Commission, 1877–78, states that the Stock Exchange, London, is a merely voluntary association; and, in view of the circular letter, recently addressed by that institution to public companies, that when board meetings are called to consider the division of profits, they should notify the Stock Exchange of the dates of such meetings, and of any decision made thereat, before such is notified to the shareholders, and that dividends should not be paid before a specified date, will he state under which section of the Companies Act, 1929, these demands have to be met; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." I am informed that the circular to which the hon. Member refers was not issued by the Committee of the Stock Exchange in pursuance of any statutory requirement but to meet the general convenience under existing conditions. I would point out that the request made in the circular is that particulars


of dividends recommended or declared should be communicated to the committee at the same time as to the financial Press and the usual Press agencies. My right hon. Friend does not consider that the circular referred to calls for any action on his part.

Mr. Banfield: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be prepared to take some action if it was proved that this particular type of circular was open to very grave abuse? People might use it for their own ends.

Captain Waterhouse: Certainly; if there are abuses, we will take action, but I have a copy of the circular here, and it seems to me to be unobjectionable.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLOTHES RATIONING.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether arrangements are being made within the new scheme for rationing to cover the cases of workers who, because of the nature of their employment, wear out their boots and clothing much quicker than others and for persons bombed out of their homes whose clothes are destroyed; and what are those arrangements?

Captain Waterhouse: Manual workers receive the same number of clothing coupons as other members of the community, but their special needs are recognised in the exemption from coupons of certain types of clothing and the reduced number of coupons required for other types. My right hon. Friend is further investigating the question of special needs. Arrangements have been made with the Assistance Board and the Board of Customs and Excise to issue clothing coupons so as to permit bombed persons to replace their essential requirements without cutting into their ordinary ration.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: In view of the peculiar nature of miners' work, will they have special consideration with regard to their clothing?

Captain Waterhouse: The hon. Gentleman will realise that there are a great many details that have to be gone into. They are being sympathetically investigated, but I cannot give any specific assurance in that direction.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that one pair of boots a year for a coal miner, steel smelter or quarry man is impossible?

Captain Waterhouse: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Thorne: Will the same number of coupons have to be given up for a suit of the value of £7 as for one of the value of £4?

Captain Waterhouse: Yes, Sir.

BILL PRESENTED.

GOODS AND SERVICES (PRICE CONTROL) BILL

"to make further provision to prevent excessive prices being charged for goods and excessive charges being made for performing services in relation to goods (including hiring and subjecting to a process), to amend the Prices of Goods Act, 1939, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Lyttelton, supported by the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate, Captain Crookshank, and Captain Waterhouse; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[9th allotted day.]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1941.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

MINISTRY OF HOME SECURITY.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £90, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Home Security." [Note.£ —10 has been voted on account.]

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again" put, and agreed to. —[Mr. James Stuart.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Mr. James Stuart.]

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I am extremely grateful to the Government for having provided this form of Debate on the subject of Civil Defence and for having given us a chance of putting questions to a number of Ministers and demanding a policy which will cover,

perhaps, half-a-dozen different Departments. I shall endeavour to confine myself to one main central issue, but I am bound to refer to a number of Departments, because, as every hon. Member knows, Civil Defence covers practically the whole of the home front in the Government. I have told the Government in advance the main points which I intend to bring forward, so that they can deploy their Ministers as they see fit— some may be on the alert while some may be resting at the side..
I am not concerned in this Debate with questions of party. I do wish, from the outset, to try to raise this Debate above any question of party and also, if I can do so—though I am not quite sure whether this is possible or not—above any question of the dispute which has recently arisen as between local government and regional government, or between local government and national government. I realise that that is not an easy thing to do, but I think it would be a great mistake if the main problems of Civil Defence were put aside and we allowed ourselves to drift into an acrimonious Debate on that subject. May I add one more remark by way of preface? The Prime Minister, in winding up a recent Debate, said he did not think it a good thing to have a series of speeches full of criticisms because, apart from the inartistic monotony, it gave a very false picture outside. In anything I say, I would beg my right hon. Friends opposite to realise that I appreciate probably as much as they do the magnificent work which has been done during the last nine months by the Civil Defence army and by the local authorities. I do not propose to describe that work all the way through, because that also would become monotonous. Nor shall I make any attempt to describe chaos as such, because I think that is not in the national interest nor is it likely to help this Debate.
Yesterday we heard about Crete and about the Army and the Navy and the Air Service. To-day we are discussing a fourth arm—the civilian arm, the army of the people. It comprises men and women wardens not yet in uniform and without pay corresponding to rank, firemen who are to be incorporated into a national and regional organisation, rescue and demolition men, decontamination squads, first-aid parties and ambulance men, the commissioners and their staffs,


town clerks, who are often controllers and food officers, education officers, who are often billeting officers, teachers, who have manned rest centres and become billeting officers, nurses and welfare workers, who have been trying to make life a litttle sweeter for women and children in the rest centres in different parts of the country, and a thousand other volunteers who are in these services. I want a Ministry worthy of this great army. Quite frankly, I want a Ministry of Civil Defence. I want a Minister in the War Cabinet who can devote the whole of his time and energy to defeating Hitler, Goering and Goebbels on the home front. The war is being waged by Germany on the sea by blockade and by air attacks against our civilian population, just as much as it is being waged against our Fighting Forces.
The war can be lost by the failure of our Civil Defence activities, just as much as by a defeat in the field. I believe that a Ministry of Civil Defence is needed to ensure the living and working conditions of the civil population against air attack. In other words, Civil Defence is a national and not a local interest. Civilian defence, enabling the essential production and services to continue, is an indispensable fourth arm in war, and should be under the direct responsibility of one Minister who has no other interests and who has ample powers. I will remind my right hon. Friend of some of the matters to which he has had to pay attention, to a greater or lesser extent, during the last few months: All matters affecting aliens, internees in Australia, detention cases, dog clubs, race-horses, juvenile delinquency, remand homes, the early closing of shops, the Sunday opening of music halls and theatres, maritime courts, subversive activities, the Grand National, vagrancy, Lady Lucas, to mention just a few. I do not want to make too much of these cases, because many of them are the subject of Questions which my right hon. Friend answers in the course of his duties. He has had to admit, during the course of the Maritime Courts Bill and in one other case, that he has not been quite on top of the subject, but how can that be expected in view of all the duties that he has to perform? I want to free him entirely from the great bulk of these responsibilities. My right hon. Friend has had to devote a great deal of his attention

to cases under Regulation 18B and to the question of aliens.
It is my conviction that, if we had adopted the bolder decision seven months ago, we should have been better able to meet the assaults of the enemy, and that we might have saved lives and property. I believe that to be so, and I treat this matter in no other sense than as one of the greatest possible national urgency at this moment. I have weighed the arguments carefully, and I have considered the consequences. Nothing has yet occurred since we last debated this question, on 9th and 10th October, to disprove the case. I have told the Government, for what it is worth, the main lines. They were put on paper 18 months ago, and they were made known to the Lord Privy Seal some time ago. For weeks and months I have been badgering four or five different Ministers —Security, Health, even at times my old Department, and Food—and I have put two direct Questions to the Prime Minister. But now we have been fortified by the Select Committee's Report, not that I agree with everything in that report, but in the main arguments at the end of it. I believe that four Ministers are to take part in this Debate, but there is only one Minister who can give an answer and make a supreme decision. It is the Prime Minister. He has to turn this excellent band of men and women into an army. Others may dispute the precise role of the Commissioners, the future of the wardens' services, and the division of duties between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Home Security, so that one is still concerned with the inside and one with the outside of shelters. I am ready to discuss these points with anyone, but the man who turned the Local Defence Volunteers into the Home Guard, and communal feeding into British Restaurants can now, if he is convinced, turn the remnants of six Government Departments, 12 Commissioners, 315 large local authorities, 1,200 smaller authorities, and 3,000,000 men and women into a civilian army under a Minister of Civil Defence. That is the case I wish to make.
At the present moment there are about 250,000 men in full-time service, which costs the nation about £40,000,000 a year. I want reconsideration to be given to this army, not on financial grounds, but on grounds of experience, security, morale


and efficiency. We had a National Service Act the other day, which the Minister of Labour explained was needed because there was a shortage of whole-time workers. He stated that volunteers preferred to enter the Forces, and he told us that the Government were anxious to take men over 35 who were in medical grade 3. We have been told that 4,000 firemen have been returned from the Army, and when asked whether there would be a national or local service, we were told that there may be. Then my right hon. Friend stated at the end of the Debate that it might be regional or national, in the service of the Crown, or it might be moved about by the Regional Commissioners. I could give a great many quotations from my right hon. Friend, showing that he, at any rate, believes in the efficacy of the Regional Commissioners. There are many quotations which I could give to the House, showing that my right hon. Friend visualises this problem in the right way, and I want to press him to take the logical conclusion. He said:
…in the course of time we shall make this a Crown service in co-operation with local authorities, and without damaging the local spirit, or rights of local authorities. … If I utilise the service—I am not sure about it, but I merely contemplate it as a possibility—as a regional mobile reserve, it will be a limited number, and they will be always ready to go here and there according to the needs of the situation." — [Official Report, 26th March, 1941; cols. 662-3, Vol. 370]
In that speech, for some reason, he did not mention wardens. He mentioned the A.F.S., the ambulance and rescue parties, and the decontamination squads, but there was no reference to wardens. He said, "I should like these men to have uniforms and not be treated less beneficially than the Home Guard, who got uniforms straight away." So we now have a sort of curious combination of volunteers, who cannot leave their employment because of the freezing order, combined with a conscript army.
I want the Minister of Home Security to tell us what his proposals are. Does he know that the men's hours of work are well over the established hours of 72 —I have a list in my own area —the training that is required, the diversity of jobs that are being done, from patrol to shelter marshalling, fire-fighting, first-aid

and gas detection? The wardens are the linchpin of the service, and they are feeling once again that they are a Cinderella. This is all part of morale. It is because I want the Minister to give his whole time to this that I want these questions looked into extremely carefully. In some areas they are badly undermanned. They are not asked on registering if they are doing Civil Defence work. They turn out in all weathers, and make their reports. They are even regarded in some rural areas as almost butting-in on the Home Guard. I ask the Minister to make a clear statement. I have a sheaf of letters from patriotic men and women in rural areas and the towns who want to know what is their status. What about uniform? I heard that there was to be a uniform; this morning I hear the contrary. I should like to know. We heard there was to be an increase of pay—5s. and 2s. 6d. —then I heard only last week that there had been delay about that. I should like to know a bit more. I should also like to know what are their duties. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me the number of paid wardens between 30 and 41 and whether they are to be exempt from military service or are to be called up in September? We do not want a repetition of what happened to the firemen who were called back from the Army.
As to fire-watchers, we have had a number of fires in the City. Some compulsory orders have been issued, but no one knows in what sort of organisation and under what direction they are going to work. Two parts of London have compulsory orders, but they do not know under whose direction they are to operate. Are they to work under wardens, police or a fire-fighting service? The right hon. Gentleman said he contemplated no change in organisation. Does he really mean this? What are the plans of his Parliamentary Secretary? In the bulk of cases these men lack supervision, they are uninstructed in practice, and in many cases not properly led. I speak as one of them. Nearly everyone in this City belongs in some way or other to this organisation. They, in fact, constitute an army. Why not organise this army? It is the stirrup pump and sandbag army that I am referring to. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us more about it to-day. Again, why not stimulate the


cadet movement? In the last Debate the right hon. Gentleman said he would think about the matter again. I have already asked three questions about it after the magnificent performance of the cadets in a certain Northern city—the invaluable messenger work and fire-fighting for many days. Does he know the story? I can give him the most extraordinary stories of boys who stayed up for nights. Suppose the Air Minister had said "I will think about it" when the Air Training Corps was formed. Instead, he got one of the keenest headmasters in the country and set to it. If you are going to be depleted in man-power, is it not common sense to have a number of people trained in first aid and fire-fighting? They enjoy it. But practically nothing has been done. It is all done pretty well by one man with very little encouragement. Why not send Professor Channon round the country? I have written only one letter, and I got an answer, but I am told by organisations which are intimately concerned with the work that they have written letters to the Ministry of Home Security and that the time lag is three months. Friends of mine have written to the right hon. Gentleman and have not got answers. I do not wonder, because he is trying to do a job which no human being can do, and he knows that I have the very highest admiration for his powers as an administrator. I ask, therefore, that the question shall be looked into.
There is a Fire Council. We see this morning that there are to be 32 independent brigades. I want to know whether there is to be an executive officer under the Fire Officer, whether there is to be a standard rate of pay, whether there are to be quasi-military ranks, so that a man in one area who is called by an officer does not necessarily mean the same thing in a very much bigger area. I believe that the vital thing has not yet been done in this Fire Council. I understand that the first meeting is to take place this week. I am looking for the three experienced men who are going to be on the Council. Otherwise it is the right hon. Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary, who has done so much invaluable work, and one or two civil servants, and they are superimposed on the old fire brigade division of the Home Office. I am certain that you have to get new men in and also on the social service side—people who have

had experience in the various areas through these last months. I could quote the various speeches and the reasons which my right hon. Friend gave in the last Debate. On this side of the House my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) pleaded for a Minister who would give his whole time to Civil Defence. He said that it was a full 24 hours' job, and
I beg of the Minister—and if the Prime Minister were here, I would ask him too—to let this be the first job. … Such a Minister ought not to be troubled with all the other matters of the Home Office. … What we want is not a shifting of personalities but a dividing up of duties and offices." — [Official Report, 10th October, 1940; col. 500, Vol. 365.]
The right hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said that he thought it would be better if we had one Minister charged with this great duty The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) and many others reinforced that argument. What did my right hon. Friend say? He said that the questions of police and fire must be linked with the Home Office and Home Security, and that you cannot sever the normal peace-time functions of health, education, food and transport from the question of security. I believe you can I have here to-day four different schemes prepared by four of the ablest men in the country each acting independently and each coming to the same conclusion. My right hon. Friend must think again about that meeting over which he presides three times a week. I know a little about it, although as an Under-Secretary I seldom attended it. I do not believe that is the right way to run Civil Defence.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Has my hon. Friend taken into account that, even if I were relieved of my duties as Secretary of State and then had added to my existing duties as Minister of Home Security Civil Defence functions and all the '' blitz '' functions of the other Departments, I should be much more burdened than I am now?

Mr. Lindsay: I admit that, but I do not want my right hon. Friend to be running six or seven other Departments. There are other Departments and their normal relations with local authorities can go on perfectly well —

Mr. Morrison: I am talking about Civil Defence functions only.

Mr. Lindsay: As far as the Civil Defence functions of these various Ministries are concerned, I say that one Minister should be in charge. I do not want to go into great detail, but I could give my right hon. Friend what I have tried to work out. In the last Debate he said:
I am not yet converted to the view of those who seem to be anxious to undermine and destroy British local government as it is now constituted. I do not like to hear people urging that we should substitute nominated institutions for representative institutions." — [Official Report, 20th May, 1941; col. 1415, Vol. 371.]
With that principle most people will agree, but that is not the issue. [Interruption.] I have been in local Government and I have sat up for five or six hours three and four nights a week in Stepney arguing out points with boards of guardians, and I know what it is; it is the grandest thing in peace time, but I do not think that a minute which has to go through five committees in war-time in a city which has been blitzed is good enough.

Mr. Lipson: Have they not emergency committees in these places?

Mr. Lindsay: They have, and in some parts of London the emergency committees consist of 15 persons each. I can give examples of where they still go through this machinery. I know of one big city where a minute had to go through for a doctor to move from one part, 60 miles away, to a Regional Commissioner centre. That is not good enough. After my right hon. Friend had made his carefully considered statement, he gave three good reasons for substituting national regional and nominated organisations for the local fire brigade. He said:
(1)Fire-fighting has become a military operation: small units will not suit. (2) Widening opportunities of promotion. (3) The shortage of man-power.
Arrangements are supposed to have been made in Scotland. I do not want to describe any particular place, but the Secretary of State knows it—if he does not, I will give it to him—where arrangements were not made. He is now sending down officers from the Department to go over the arrangements with the local

authorities. What is the role of the Regional Commissioners? What are they doing if that is not their role? The Regional Commissioner has become a no-man's land and his functions are becoming completely vague. Let us do away with him if he is not necessary. I am not tied to any nominated or regional organisation. I thought that this was a short-circuiting of authority and a simple form of executive authority. If we do not achieve that simpler form, if it makes for increased circulars and for fresh instructions having to go to one more person, then it does not simplify the machine. My right hon. Friend made many other remarks in his speech and dealt with many other questions about the commissioners, the Ministry of Health and the various parts of the Civil Defence machinery, and if they are all put together they contradict each other.
Last week we had a speech from the Minister of Health, and if we were not to have this Debate to-day I would have been left in despair. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly asked for a re-classification of the areas. I have asked for that too. He asked for giving the counties control of evacuation and particularly of billeting—a sensible proposal and one which my right hon. Friend wishes had been adopted before. I never held the view that we should work these things through the smaller authorities. Perhaps I may be criticised for that, but I say it with complete sincerity. My hon. Friend also said—and I suppose he was speaking for his party—that he wanted a national survey of accommodation and a closer relation between priority classes and earmarked accommodation. The Minister of Health replied and said that there was full co-operation at the top and thoroughgoing co-operation at the regional level. He was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) about differences between the Service Ministries and the Ministry of Health and he said they went before a tribunal, a ministerial committee, and finally to the Cabinet. Do these differences really go to the Cabinet? When I asked what this committee was I was told that in an ensuing Debate this matter would be cleared up. My right hon. Friend said that there was no cut-and-dried plan and that county councils


were requested to act as co-ordinating authorities. Three weeks after a blitz on a certain city the authorities were called together for the first time. That is not good enough. He said that an interesting movement had begun in one area to obtain material support. What does he mean by an interesting movement? This is preposterous. How can you conduct a war when you have 16 councils each of which are billeting authorities, and yet county institutions are under the public assistance committees and the counties themselves? How can you go on working in that way? I know of cases where people were turned out of an institution in a rural district council area because the institution came under the public assistance committee. I could quote other instances but I do not want to do so because I think this question is known. I want action now and some changes. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health said:
 We shall not fail, in weighing up the lessons of the new concentrated technique, to see that no homeless person goes without accommodation.''
I will ask no more about that. Finally, the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) put a series of questions both to the Minister of Home Security and the Minister of Health. I want to quote one. On the question of local authorities who fail to prepare for air raids, the reply in general was that there were regional officers whose duty was to sec that the best arrangements were made for dealing with such situations. The hon. Member asked what happened when local authorities failed to carry out their duties. The Minister of Health replied:
I have no knowledge of any such case. I have been round ten of the Civil Defence regions in the last 14 weeks and I am sure if there had been a case of this kind I should have heard of it." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1941; col. 1975, Vol. 371.]
I had to quote this because it does not make any sense. It does not square with the facts that we know. If the Minister of Health and the Minister of Home Security do not know these facts, then they need to get an intelligence and planning system. You need it; you need a very good one.
If this were a Secret Session, I would say more about it. I wish to ask the Minister of Home Security if he has got an adequate intelligence and planning

system. Is there any proper intelligence and planning system for the Ministry of Home Security as a whole? The Ministry of Food, in a pamphlet addressed to local authorities on British Restaurants, say that emergency feeding is not to be confused with British Restaurants. This sounds all right, but in practice what happens? Communal feeding is under the Ministry of Food and the local authorities. Emergency feeding and rest centres are under the Ministry of Health. School children are under the Board of Education. Factories are under the Ministry of Labour. Docks are under the Ministry of Transport. The time has come to put all subsidised State feeding under one direction. There is nothing difficult about it. A young girl known to me, who has been into one of the worst provided areas and made excellent arrangements, was told, by one of the officials—I suppose an echo of the Minister of Home Security—while she was making the arrangements, that she was undermining the local authority. This is an extraordinary situation, when we have cities where there is bound to be a quick change-over from normal to emergency. The essence of the problem is that people are buying and selling, children are being born, in areas which in a night are a battle field, while for three months there might be nothing happening there. You must have two things—a permanent nucleus of highly trained specialists, men who know their jobs, and who can in turn call on volunteers.
The best example is provided by teachers and rest centres. If the Minister will go to one of the counties he will find that the Director of Education is engaged in feeding 15,000, 20,000, 30,000 children. He has a staff with catering experience; the minor local authorities really have no such staff. He has got central purchasing organisation and transport. The Ministry of Food sends out circulars exhorting all local authorities to start British Restaurants without considering the existing facilities, resulting in the spending of a great deal more per capita than is spent by the Board of Education on their catering work. This dualism is causing the same friction that was caused over nursery schools. Can you imagine the attitude of mind, the strain and stress, of local officials who have had to put up with this organisation for month after


month? They do not know whether they are dealing with the Board of Education or the Ministry of Health for a specific area. There should be one organisation responsible for State-subsidised feeding, and private enterprise should be encouraged to get on with its own scheme. The whole should be submitted to the Regional Commissioner for his vetting.

Mr. H. Morrison: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether that authority should be in his proposed Ministry of Civil Defence?

Mr. Lindsay: Certainly. Coming to local authorities, I must not be expected to go into too much detail. Civil Defence must obviously be the responsibility of one person who has oversight of the various emergency aspects of feeding, everything to do with billeting, rest centres and housing, with the aspects of transport which particularly affect blitzed cities, and with the repair of houses and all the main public utilities. You come down to the Regional Commissioner. At the moment—I want to be precise—the Regional Commissioner has no power over the Ministry of Health regional organisations. I admit that in many cases it is a question of persons. Persons are the essence of the problem. They do work happily together in some cases, but in many cases no arrangements can be made.
I put it to the Lord President of the Council or the Minister of Home Security, how can the Regional Commissioner know what is going on if he has not power to look into all Civil Defence questions? How can he know what is happening in regard to the many difficult questions arising in reception areas? In reception areas the war does not mean Bardia, Tobruk or Sollum, but three more people in the house, and if people have to feed for many months one child who has to pay and another who does not have to pay, that leads to the lowering of the morale on the civilian front. I am glad that the question of the under-fives has been settled, but in my view it has been settled the wrong way. I am absolutely convinced that they ought to be under the Board of Education, but I do not want to raise that point now because it is one for a separate Debate, for I feel

strongly upon it and so do most educationists. All these matters must be reported to the Regional Commissioner. How can the Regional Commissioner satisfy the Minister of Civil Defence that things are all right in his region if he cannot look into these various questions?
Now I come to the lower level. My right hon. Friend must be aware that at the county level, or at the group level, there are in existence perfectly good schemes. There is one in London, and in that case the essence of the business is that the man who is the controller is also responsible for the emergency social services. He has round him an O.C. Food, an O.C. Transport, an O.C. Works and Buildings and an O.C. Billeting. That scheme is working. It has come through several blitzes. They have had their rest centres and have cleared them in four days. I am not going to say where this has happened, but theirs is a perfectly good and practicable scheme. Why cannot it be repeated, with modifications, all over the country? I believe that every Regional Commissioner should take hold of his region and divide it up into target areas and into areas which are mostly for reception and put somebody in charge in each of those areas. That person will have at his beck and call a number of officers, and I am sure they will not consider themselves as being treated in an ignominious fashion because they are working with the deputy town clerk. I have discussed this matter with scores of them. The town clerk or the deputy town clerk does, in fact, give orders to them. I have inquired in rural district council areas and in urban district council areas, "How do you get on with the local officials?" and the reply has been," They are my deputy controllers. We get on perfectly well."
But there things had been carefully worked out and rehearsed. My right hon. Friend is only talking about rehearsals. It is in a circular which he has issued. [Interruption.] Well, at any rate he has been re-emphasising it. But these rehearsals have been going on for many weeks among authorities who really have a well-conceived plan. [Interruption.] If that is so, how is it that the arrangements—I cannot mention places—did not prove to be satisfactory? I know that when there are fires and when


high-explosive bombs are falling a lot of things which we are talking about here are pushed aside. I quite appreciate that position; but the organisation which I am talking about was not ready. I cannot mention places, but I am sure my right hon. Friend must admit it. I want to see these preparations completed. The hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink), whom I see in his place, was appointed several months ago for London, and I thought the rest of the regions were going to follow London. Why have they not done so? The problems are only different in degree. Why is there not someone with the position of the hon. and learned Member for North Croydon in other regions? Why is there nobody who has charge of the emergency social services in the other regions? If the Government cannot go the whole way, if we cannot have a Minister wholly concerned with Civil Defence Services, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he might go so far as to give us a Minister or an officer who is responsible right the way down the chain, from top to bottom, for the emergency social services; because everyone knows that when the injured have been put into hospital and the dead have been buried, when the "all-clear" has gone, that it is then that the problems start. It is the aftermath, the weary weeks and months that follow. German propaganda knows all about it, and there fore I am not revealing anything—

Sir Francis Fremantle: Will the hon. Member say what he meant a moment ago by his reference to an officer right down the chain?

Mr. Lindsay: In the Central secretariat which I wish my right hon. Friend to preside over, these services, which mainly concern certain aspects of education—but only certain aspects—certain aspects of feeding and rest centres, which affect teachers and directors of education, billeting and rehousing—will be represented at the top. In London the Regional Commissioner has either another Commissioner or a Deputy-Commissioner who is responsible for all this. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon is responsible for co-ordinating work for the homeless throughout London, and there is no reason why there should not be such a Commissioner in Manchester, in Bristol or anywhere else. It

would save an enormous amount of trouble. When you get down to the county or group end there are the men waiting, the officers of the county: I would not go lower, but would leave the urban and rural district councils to be the agencies of the slightly bigger authorities. There would have to be a certain number of administrative changes, but I think they could be effected in an evolutionary way, and I do not want any drastic action which would upset the susceptibilities of local government in this country. "Susceptibilities" may be the wrong word, and possibly I should have said "traditions." We should have to work through the smaller local authorities acting as agencies.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us precisely what he wants to do with the local authorities, what powers he wants to take away and what he will leave them with?

Mr. Lindsay: Should a Regional Commissioner give an order to a local authority—probably he will be trying first to find out something—I believe that in most cases they will work happily together. But, it is asked, what will happen in other cases where we have to deal with a recalcitrant authority? I do not believe that the people concerned will object to his giving an order. He takes away no power with authority. The people who are the victims of the bad organisation do not object to that at all. It will not happen, except in a few cases. My hon. Friend can say that we get it anyhow, when the Regional Commissioner can take away the complete power, and that it has been done. I know, but will he be honest? It is a big thing to do. You can do it only in rare cases. I want a quicker day-to-day machinery for dealing with the matter.
If we go on as we are going at present, with four main Ministers—Home Security, Health, Education and Food—sending circulars to different local authorities, some to 300 and some to 1,200, I believe you can never get the efficient machinery for Civil Defence which we require. If my right hon. Friend thinks we can, I would ask him how he accounts for the widespread critical feeling. Is it just because things have been a bit more difficult than we expected? Why is it that letters are appearing, not about one aspect


only of Civil Defence but many aspects, and not in one paper only but in many papers? Is it because people are satisfied or because they feel that, underneath, there is something wrong with this fourth army and that it is not working properly? I do not say that the scheme which I put forward is watertight, and I will not give details right down to the last man, but I say that, in essence, one man ought to be held responsible, and Regional Commissioners should be given greater responsibility, especially for social services and emergency services, and greater control over billeting, food and all these matters. It is confusing and worrying to authorities who are understaffed—people have been removed from their offices and put as privates in the Army—when they have thousands of evacuees in their new areas. I can give instances to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education of officers who have gone. Let him consider the poor, wretched, welfare workers who have been sent down to cope with problems which, in many cases, are beyond human control. I have not mentioned the shortage of housing, because I do not want to say very much more. I have spoken far too long already. The Minister of Health knows only too well that people in London now, with children under five years of age, cannot get out because there is nowhere for them to go. I have that information on the best evidence from people who are living on the job, social workers in London. I do not want to go into the matter. I am sure the Ministry of Health know about it, and they must do something about accommodation, perhaps by rationing housing, or by hutments or the like, before the winter comes.
It is because I see these things not being done that I have been more critical to-day than perhaps I ought to have been. I see the camps about which we have spoken so much not being filled. My right hon. Friend says it is because of the ins and outs, the ebb and flow, but that is not the fact. The Secretary of State for Scotland said, "We are putting another 100in this week," but the weeks have gone by. The camps are ideal places and there is no reason why they should not be packed out and why there should be any empty places at all, but when people have gone from blitzed areas to the camps and

then have gone back to the blitzed areas, from those ideal surroundings, there must be something wrong.
I ask that the four Ministers, under the direction of the War Cabinet and the Lord President of the Council, will, before tomorrow night, give this matter their very closest and deepest attention. If they do, I believe they will be helping in a very signal way to win the war on the home front. It is a subtle business. It is not so spectacular as some things, but the people who are living 26 in a house and 10 in a room, as they are in many places —I do not want to underestimate the difficulties of accommodation—feel the pinch before the soldiers. They will feel the difficulties long before the people even in the bombed areas, where it is something to have been through it all, after weary days. I plead, with all the earnestness I can, for a simplification of the machinery of the Ministry of Health in all the reception areas of this country. Cut out more red tape than you have already cut, and make it more possible for officials—directors of education, town clerks and the rest who are working overtime—and women and children to go through the war with the deep conviction that they are fighting for better things.

Mr. H. Morrison: Before my hon. Friend sits down can I ask him— [Interruption] —well, a serious allegation was made. The implication in my hon. Friend's speech was that it was not infrequent for there to be a three-months' delay in replying to letters to the Ministry of Home Security. I wish my hon. Friend would prove that statement. If it is so, I very much want to know, because there will be a row with somebody.

Mr. Lindsay: I want there to be a row with somebody. I quoted the case of a body of civil workers —

Mr. Morrison: It is a case?

Mr. Lindsay: I quoted it as one case, but I said that there were other cases of letters which had not been answered. I said that either the machinery was getting clogged or my right hon. Friend had too big a job.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): The Ministries of Home Security and Health are, of course, mainly and primarily concerned with the


subject matter of this Debate, but the hon. Member who has just sat down said that other Ministries were involved, including the Board of Education. It may be for the convenience of the House if I deal now with such references as were made to the Board, and leave aside the main thesis which he propounded, in order to clear the way for the more strictly relevant issues. This course may be more convenient to the hon. Member himself, whose administrative experience at the Board of Education formed the basis of some of the conclusions at which he arrived to-day. I shall not attempt to turn the Debate into a discussion of the Education Estimates or to make a long speech. I believe that numerous and long Ministerial speeches are not so welcome as the uninitiated might imagine they would be.
Two main points it appears to me arose out of the hon. Member's speech, one closely related to the other. The first was in connection with this fourth army, that there was not adequate co-operation, or quick enough co-operation, between the Departments concerned. Consequently, there must be some sort of remedy to provide greater unity of control and direction, and it was desirable to set up another Ministry. I think the hon. Member called it a Ministry of Civil Defence, presumably with the purpose—I use this word with reluctance—of coordinating the activities, in relation to Defence problems, of the Ministries at present concerned. Of course, the criticism of lack of co-operation between Departments is not a new one. It is of long standing, and I do not suppose it will ever be finally quelled. Indeed, the hon. Member himself, about a year ago, met similar criticism in the House of Commons on the education Debate. 1 heard his answer to that criticism, to which I am going to refer the House. He said:
I could go into detail of how we ourselves, the Ministry of Home Security and the Ministry of Health are working together. It is easy to criticise this machinery, but all that I can say is that, though I do not go to the meetings, as far as I know the three Ministers meet most days." — [official report, 5th March, 1940; col. 344, Vol. 358.]
That was his answer to the criticism of lack of co-operation at the centre, and as regards lack of co-operation at the circumference the regional officers are constantly working on the difficulties. I may develop

these points shortly. When I heard that speech of his, I felt a certain amount of sympathy for him, because I detected a note of sadness and reproach in the sentence, "I do not go to the meetings," and I took steps, when I assumed office, to avoid any similar feelings on the part of his successor, who invariably attends the Ministerial meetings on the appropriate occasions, which occur two and sometimes three times a week. I cannot help thinking that it is possibly because he did not go to these meetings himself—and it is a great pity he did not—that he makes his criticism, because if he had, he would have seen co-operation in actual practice. I do not say it is his fault, although it may be because he perhaps ought to have pressed to go, but if he had gone, he would have gained a very different idea of what co-operation between Ministers means from that he holds at present, because he has not had any firsthand experience of that particular form of working our machine, and I can assure the House it is a very valuable one. At least twice a week we meet under the chairmanship of the Minister of Home Security, with an agenda of points that concern us mutually, and we thrash them out. In 99 cases out of 100 they are settled, and, to answer a point which the hon. Member made, if there should be a clash between two Ministers or Departments which cannot be resolved by arrangements between them, then, of course, as everybody knows, such a dispute must in the last resort be taken to the War Cabinet for settlement.

Mr. Lindsay: May I interrupt a moment? I promise I will not do it again. I did not go into details, and I do concede that centrally high officials from each of the offices sit with the Minister two or three times a week, if not every day. But I had envisaged a permanent secretariat for Civil Defence, so that the circulars did not have to go round and round to three or four Ministers and then very often be sent out separately. That secretariat would issue instructions and send circulars direct to the commissioners. There is no such permanent secretariat at the present time, and I think that is partly the difficulty.

Mr. Ramsbotham: Of course, machinery of that type takes a little time to digest, but at first sight I think that very great


confusion will arise if such a central secretariat were sending out circulars to various authorities without consulting with the Department which normally send those circulars out. I cannot see the point, but I will finish with the question of co-operation before I deal with that. I want to repeat to the House that, as the Minister of Health pointed out a few days ago, the method of co-operation adopted is very simple. There are few of us, not a great unwieldy committee, and we carry out our work expeditiously in great harmony. I think that so far as co-operation between Ministers is concerned it is a very satisfactory way of doing it. However, I do not suppose my hon. Friend will agree, because he wants something far more ambitious and, as I think, far more likely to clog the whole machine. I will say why. I also want to find out from him how, in his judgment, this is going to affect my Department, because he ought to be able to appreciate that better than any other. He wants a Minister of Civil Defence to be appointed with a secretariat, that is, I suppose, with a staff of civil servants competently informed and experienced in the work of the various Departments with which such a Ministry of Civil Defence would be concerned. I may say, in passing, that it is not too easy these days to obtain an additional staff of that kind. But that is what the proposal comes to, and I would like to ask him what the effect of that is going to be on the Department of Education.
I am concerned with what is to be my relation to the Minister of Civil Defence, and what is to be the relation of that Ministry to the local education authorities. Is that Ministry to step in between me and the local education authorities? Is it to take part of my work away and deal with it in direct relation with those local education authorities? According to some illustrations given by my hon. Friend, the latter appears to be the course to be adopted. For instance, he dealt with food, and said he wanted all subsidised services to be put under one control, presumably the control of this new Minister. Very well, but under existing methods in connection with school meals there are, as the House knows, free meals and meals that are paid for. I may say in passing that there has been a very great advance made in the number of school meals,

which is nearly double that of a year ago. The free meal, of course, is a subsidised meal. The others are paid for and are not subsidised. According to the hon. Gentleman, therefore, the Minister of Civil Defence would concern himself with subsidised meals and I should continue to deal with meals paid for by the recipients.

Mr. Lindsay: That is not the position. The Gilbertian situation exists now in any county or in any blitzed area in which there is no one in charge.

Mr. Ramsbotham: No one in charge of what?

Mr. Lindsay: Of subsidised feeding. In many cases the educational secretary has had the work put on him because he has staff—domestic science teachers, etc. I want him, and I think it would be the natural solution, to take on that other work. But he must appoint someone; he cannot go on doing it himself. It seems to me that it is a perfectly natural liaison.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I should have to examine that carefully before I should be convinced that great confusion would not arise from it. I have gathered from certain articles by the hon. Member that he rather favours the stimulation of the use of teachers and so forth for communal feeding, but although they have done marvellous work, I do hope the position will not arise in which teachers will be kept away from their own work for that purpose.

Mr. Lindsay: I did not mean that.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I put it as a word of warning. A propos the Ministry of Civil Defence, it seems that the hon. Member finds it very difficult indeed to separate Defence work from the ordinary civil work. But to come back to the Board of Education: the Minister for Civil Defence could not concern himself with what you might consider primarily as emergency feeding arising out of enemy action, and, I suppose, possibly billeting and the evacuation of children—I am not sure. I do not know what part the Department of Education would play. Are we to be just a post office, or are we to have responsibilities of our own? I can see a first-class muddle arising in my Department as a result of this duplication of functions. I shall take a lot of convincing that matters can be made better


by superimposing a super-functionary on top of the existing Departments and splitting up the Departments. One activity dovetails into another. Perhaps in the course of the Debate the argument will be developed, but I should be very sorry indeed to split up these functions between two Ministries. At the present time the Ministries work perfectly well in co-operation.
The hon. Member referred to the nursery centres. Perhaps hon. Members are not entirely familiar with what has been done about nursery centres. I do not propose to give a long description now, but steps have been taken which it is hoped will greatly increase the number of war-time nurseries, as they are now called. I am surprised that the hon. Member, with his passion for co-ordination and planning, should think that this is wrong. I will give one instance which convinced me that it was right. I have watched the proposal with the most scrupulous care, because I was determined that if it in any way detracted from the educational responsibility I had over the children from two to five, I would resist it; and that, on the other hand, if I were satisfied that it did not do so, there was everything to be said for it. There were two authorities—the maternity and child welfare authority of the Ministry of Health, responsible for children of all ages up to five, and the Board of Education, with power to assist the local authorities in respect of children between the ages of two and five. To the planner, the co-ordinator, that was a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, and he ought to be glad that it has been removed In my judgment, all these; demands for unification and consolidation, or co-ordination, are very much overdone. There is a type of mind—quite a respectable type—which thinks we can settle a problem by putting somebody on top of those who are concerned with it.

Viscountess Astor: Or sending out another circular.

Mr. Ramsbotham: Yes, sending a circular is sometimes necessary. I do not think that the hon. Member has made out his case. I have said that we have a number of Ministers and their powers are carefully defined by Parliament. Those Ministers are closely co-operating. I cannot see the point of superimposing

another important functionary over them, to deal with a portion of their activities which it is extremely difficult to separate and to define. It sounds easy to draw up these plans. I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member, and have read his articles with great interest, but he will forgive me if I say that I am rather apprehensive of planners. Some planners have not conferred much benefit on the human race in the last 20 years. Also, the planners are inclined to be theoretical. I am not in any way attacking the hon. Member, but it has happened sometimes that when I have listened to him, and have read his articles, I think at the back of my mind, that when at school and at the University he got stuffed with the utilitarian philosophy and the "economic man," and that that has stuck to him ever since, without his realising that it is rather outmoded. The planner is apt to forget the nature of the person for whom he has to plan and the machinery and the instruments that have to be used in the planning. He is apt to regard humanity as a mass, and not to realise that it consists of individuals with a variety of tastes, who do not work like a clock or like the members of an antheap. I detect all through the hon. Member's articles and speeches a considerable inconsistency. On the one hand, he presses for unity of control, centralisation, consolidation, and so forth, and, on the other hand, for decentralisation and diffusion. I have his articles here. They contain recommendations for more regional commissioners as an essential part of our life. If that is not decentralisation I do not know what is.

Viscountess Astor: In war-time.

Mr. Ramsbotham: In peace-time as well. He is a planner, and a planner must think a little beyond the war— quite rightly. I never quite know—it is my own fault, of course—where the hon. Member starts and where he finishes. If I were asked to put down here and now, concretely, what we should do to carry out the hon. Member's proposal, I should, quite frankly, make a very poor shot at it. All I have is a general impression that what is required is some sort of a genealogical tree of bureaucrats, descending from the great man at the top down through a number of functionaries to the bottom. It rather reminds one of


the description of the word "mugwumpery," which has been defined as a gentleman sitting on the fence with his mug on one side of him and his wump on the other.

Dr. Haden Guest: The right hon. Gentleman has certainly given us an excellent example of an academic oration. I have not heard a more academic oration for a long time or an oration more remote from the realities of war. While I do not agree with everything that was said by my hon. Friend in his opening speech, I think that the subject deserved more courteous treatment than has been given to it by the right hon. Gentleman, who has just amused himself by exercising his undoubted academic qualifications and showing what he could do. My remarks will be rather more blunt, because I am concerned only with the question of the organisation of Civil Defence and how the job can best be done. In order that we may realise what that job really is, we must form some kind of estimate of the danger that we have to meet. I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for descending to such mundane details. I want to deal with realities and not with superficialities with which he has been entertaining the House.
I suggest that, in future, attacks on this country may be more frequent than they have been in the past, more intense, prolonged and accompanied by air-borne invasion. [Interruption.] Somebody says that I am very cheerful. I am trying to focus the attention of the House on to the realities of this matter and not upon superficialities, and I cannot in that case be cheerful. I am doing this because it is essential that, in calculating what we ought to do with our Civil Defence services, we must calculate the risks that we have to meet, and, as is always done by the wise commander—and I hope that the Government is going to be the wise commander in this respect—we must estimate for a wide margin of unanticipated happenings and prepare against more than we think is likely to happen. That is always done in military calculations, and it should certainly be done in Civil Defence. I was not able to be present at the Debate yesterday, but I understand from what I have read and from what I have heard elsewhere as well as here that

some of the happenings in Crete were unanticipated. I hope that there will not be unanticipated happenings in this country for which Civil Defence is not adequately prepared. We ought to prepare and allow a margin for unanticipated new action of something like 100 per cent.
We have to have the very closest cooperation with the other services—all the social services and all the Fighting Services. Civil Defence needs liaison very badly indeed, and we must plan very much better in the future than we have done up to the present. I want to have the organisation for Civil Defence purposes which will work locally very well, regionally very well and on a national scale. We can have a service of that kind if we will organise it. We have had up to the present a good many Debates on Civil Defence over a number of years. None has been quite satisfactory, because there always have been loose ends left to be tied up. I hope that this Debate will end by getting the views of the House clear and definite, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in that respect. My own cards were put upon the table when I put a Motion on the Paper of the House. It still is on the Paper, but the economies of the House prevent it from being put in extenso, and therefore I will read the terms of it now. The Motion says:
That in the opinion of this House all Civil Defence services "—
I emphasise the words "Civil Defence services "—
should be placed under the operational control of a Minister of Civil Defence without other duties charged to co-ordinate the activities of all local government authorities, and other agencies concerned, and that the services should include fire fighting, A.R.P., shelters, evacuation and the ambulance, medical and hospital services concerned with air-raid casualties.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite will notice that I did not mention educational services. I have not these services in mind. My hon. Friend has put his name down to that Motion, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith), who is not now present, and in normal circumstances, if I had been as free as I would like to be for Parliamentary duties, I would have pressed to have that Motion debated, because I believe that it puts the matter into focus and would have enabled me, if it had been


presented, to get a clear and definite expression of the views of the House. Since that Motion was put upon the Paper the arguments in favour of a Ministry of National Defence have been very much strengthened by a publication which I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not mention, and that is, the Fourteenth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and I would like to quote for his benefit and that of the House in general parts of paragraphs 116 and 117 dealing with the administration of Civil Defence. The Committee say that they are convinced that some of the shortcomings with which they have dealt in their Report are due to certain fundamental weaknesses in the administrative machine, and they mention some of these things. They say that the Departments issued circulars which were often difficult to interpret, that these were sent to authorities whom they did not concern, and that they were too numerous to be effective. That is the opinion of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, a responsible body, which, I have no doubt, we all respect. They came to the conclusion in paragraph 120 that:
The proposal that Civil Defence should be the responsibility of a single Ministry has much in its favour and secures the obvious advantage of concentrating the energies of a single Minister unburdened with other responsibilities.
They go on to say that they recommend that further consideration should be given to this possibility and that there should, in any case, be a decentralisation of Civil Defence, devolving the functions of Civil Defence on to the Regional Commissioners. I want freely to examine that proposal, and to say at the outset how proud we all are of our Civil Defence services; as proud as we are of our Army, Navy and Air Force. We talk of their heroism and are glad to see in the Press that they are given awards for their great gallantry. But while talking of their heroism we do not always provide them with the means of efficient action—with the tools, to use the Prime Minister's phrase, which they need, and we do not provide them with the organisations which they need in all cases. In this case it is not America who must provide the tools, but we must provide them, and provide the organisation which at the present time is not provided. The Civil Defence services should be as well-

equipped, organised, staffed, directed and looked after as the Fighting Services, and at present they are not, and those who are engaged in the Civil Defence services know it, and it is no secret to the Germans. A man in the fire-fighting services at the present time, if he is sick for three weeks, is discharged without a pension and left to his own devices. If he is injured, if, for instance, he breaks a leg or falls from a ladder, while on active duty, he is discharged in 13 weeks and left to his own devices. I say this is quite indefensible, and that these men should be put on exactly the same footing as serving soldiers. They should get hospital treatment until they are well and when fit should be returned to their service or, if they are not fit, retired on a pension or a gratuity, as the case may be. But that kind of organisation is bad and needs to be brought to an end.
The present condition is that the Civil Defence services are really an adjunct of local and Government administration. They are not services primarily for action. Let me quote from an article in the "Times" on 16th May which deals with organisation against air attack. In its opening words it says:
Air attack is an act of war. Its consequences must be met and fought on the same plane. How much longer are we to keep up the pretence that daily invasion from the air and the crushing down of our large cities can be treated as a new department of local government and tacked on to normal peace administration?
I think that is a fair and accurate expression of the view of the country as a whole with regard to the Civil Defence services. There are no real guts; there is no real action in this business. There is too much administrative muddle and this, unfortunately, is characteristic, to a large extent, of all Departments. I am quoting nothing which is not already in the report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. The work done by our defences is magnificent, but are we giving our defence workers the support they have the right to demand? Are we getting the defence which the country has a right to demand? The answer to both questions is "Not enough." Lives which could be saved are lost through the lack of equipment and organisation, and in the Report of the Committee they say, with regard to repair and provision and breakdown parties, that there has


been an insufficient provision of these parties with a consequent loss of life. Unfortunately, that is known to be the case.
Let us look at some other definite and concrete problems which must be tackled. I have mentioned the breakdown and repair parties on which rescue depends. There have been deficiencies, as is quite well known; there have been not enough people and appliances, and lives have been lost. With regard to stretcher parties, ambulances and hospital organisation, which for some mysterious reason are administered under two separate Departments, I hope the Minister will not say they ought to be separated. They ought to be joined. They have done admirable work, but not always with the co-operation which is necessary. There is not always co-operation between the Ministry of Home Security and the Ministry of Health. There is not always knowledge of what resources of help are actually waiting and available for use if only they were called upon. Valuable lives have been lost because of these difficulties and muddles. I do not want to refer too much to gas, except to say that there is a possibility that the enemy may use gas. Let us hope there will not be muddles and inefficiency in dealing with that, because it is a menace that will be very considerable indeed. There is another aspect of the matter altogether— the loss of manpower. The lack of organisation at present leads to a very large amount of waste labour. Many people are employed unnecessarily in various services because of the lack of co-ordination and co-operation. How much is there waste of material and money? In all of these things there is a great deal of waste of man-power, material and money.
It is apparently the opinion of some people that the regional organisations will help us out of our difficulties, but you do not get rid of difficulties merely by invoking a regional organisation. If you lack co-ordination and co-operation between different services which make up Civil Defence as a whole, you do not get rid of your problem by handing over that lack of organisation to the region.
It may be easier for the region to control it on a small scale, but you must get rid of your lack of co-ordination and cooperation within, both nationally and

locally, before your work will be better. The region primarily was not designed for this purpose at all; it was designed as a local expression of government as a whole— decentralised—in case of invasion or a breakdown of communications, so that government could be carried on in the regions in which the whole country has been divided. I want better organisation inside the regions than you have in the national Departments, because clearly they have not all the tremendous reserves and expert and technical knowledge that the Government Departments have at their disposal. You want good organisation in the regions; you will not get rid of your problems by "passing the buck" to the regions.
I believe we need a Ministry of Civil Defence for the operational control of the services. I would like to make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and to others, that operative control and administrative control are two entirely different things. The control of men in action is a different thing from pure administration of them from the standpoint of a Government Department. The suggestion of a change from the top to the bottom was laughed at, but suppose I put the question in different language. Suppose I say, "You want a definite chain of command from the Minister at the top to the humblest worker in Civil Defence." Is there anything foolish about that? That is the procedure on which all the Fighting Services are based. You want that procedure, and you have not got it at the present time. Operational control is a different thing from administrative control. I do not want to interfere in the least degree with the normal functioning of local government in this country. I am firmly convinced, and have been all my adult life, of the supreme advantage of these institutions. I know from my former close association with the London County Council, and now from my association as member for the borough which I have the honour to represent with the Islington Borough Council, the invaluable work that these organisations carry out. It is local government authorities who call for this operational control, it is they who want clear directions, it is they who want to get rid of this chaos of circulars sent to the wrong people, addressed to the wrong places, and containing instructions which nobody can understand.


I do not intend to make more than a passing reference to the mess which has been made of the fire-watching business. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, by failing to issue proper directions, has caused very great trouble not only in London but all over the country. The responsibility is entirely his, because he did not realise the necessity for a definite chain of command. How have the people of London and other places dealt with the matter? They have said that they would not have the lack of system and that they would carry on the work themselves as volunteers, independently of the Home Secretary's system. I hope this will shame him into bringing about some reasonable order, as I believe he is now trying to do.
But in any case, if no other changes are made in regard to Civil Defence, the Departments which make up the operational Civil Defences are undoubtedly a whole-time job for one man. In times of peace, the Home Office was a senior Department of dignity and importance and was regarded as whole-time employment for one Minister. I believe that in war time many other things are added to the work of the Home Office. It seems to me that the Minister of Home Security ought not to be at the same time Home Secretary. The Minister in charge of Civil Defence should be a man devoting the whole of his time to the operational side of the business. I should like to see a Minister of Civil Defence provided with an operational staff having the same authority, but not the same numbers, as those provided for the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. Civil Defence is the fourth arm. It is time to give up, saving so, and to treat it as so. The Minister should be given what he requires to carry out his extremely important job, and he should be given authority to deal with all the Departments that are concerned. I put forward for consideration the suggestion as to whether the chief of that staff should be, not a civil servant, but a general from the Army, on the active list, a man who is accustomed to the operational control of men and not only accustomed to the issuing of circulars. Civil Defence is, or should be, operational and not administrative.
I realise that there are very many matters of the greatest importance with which I have had not time to deal; there are so many of these matters that I suggest

it is perhaps impossible to deal with all of them even in a two days Debate. I believe that the question of the proper organisation of Civil Defence is of as vital national urgency as the question of the invasion of Crete, which was discussed in a previous Debate, and that it ought to be considered from the operational point of view. I say that with the utmost sincerity and conviction. The suggestion I make is that a small Committee of this House should, be set up to consider the whole question of the functions of a Ministry of Civil Defence in the light of what will be said by hon. Members who speak in the Debate and by the Ministers who reply to the Debate, and in the light of what has been said by the Select Committee on National Expenditure; I suggest further that such a Committee should be charged with the preparation of a plan or the turning down of a plan, and that they should present a report within a very short period, say, a limit of three weeks. Much of the evidence has been collected already by the Select Committee on National Expenditure and very much more is available in the Departments. The keynote of the question should be—how can we best obtain, not administrative control, but operational control, of a Service that is vitally necessary for the safety of the people of this country, vitally necessary for the carrying on of our industries, vitally necessary in the Battle of Britain, which is now entering upon a new phase? I do not want to displace local government, but inside local government I want to build a steel frame of Civil Defence services, leaving local government intact but placing all the power of local government at the disposal of an operational Ministry of Civil Defence.

Mr. Craik Henderson(Leeds, North-East): The speeches to which we have listened so far in the Debate have dealt with what one might call the higher and wider aspects of Civil Defence. I want merely to deal with one or two smaller but still important matters. I realise fully the difficulties of the Ministry and the enormous complexity of the problems they have to face. In the beginning they had to improvise services, but now that the war has gone on so long, we have passed that stage, and the services have to be treated as more or less permanent and the conditions of labour have to be


dealt with on that basis. To give one example only—and this is the first point that I want to raise—I will refer to the conditions of the employés at some of the report and control centres. I have seen these centres in many parts of the country. In some places the conditions are good, but in others they are unsatisfactory. At many of the centres the local authorities have adapted their own premises. The ventilation is most unsatisfactory.
I gather that usually the average number of hours which the women at these centres have to work is about 56 a week, provided that there is not one day's holiday in the week. If it is the intention of the Ministry that these women, whose work is, in the conditions under which they work, of an exhausting nature, should get one day off a week, there can be no complaint, but I am told that, in fact, they very often get one day off only in two or three weeks. I think the Minister will find that in these conditions the health of these workers will deteriorate, if it has not already deteriorated. I appeal to the Home Secretary or to the Minister of Health to carry out an inspection. What may have been all right at the beginning, when there had to be improvised accommodation, is not all right now. I assure the Minister, from my own observations, that a great many of these places are not up to the standards that would be insisted on in an ordinary factory. To put the matter at the very lowest, in the interests of the service and of efficiency, quite apart from justice to the women who are doing this very difficult job, the standard of working conditions at the centres should be at least up to the standard required in the factories. These women, too, have to do one week of night duty in every three weeks, working 10 hours on each night of that week. Unless there is a yellow or a red warning, a proportion of them—say, at least one-half—can be rested, but at a great many of the centres there is no provision of beds or bunks, and they have to rest on chairs. I appeal to the Minister to give some attention to this problem and to the working conditions at these centres.
The second point to which I wish to refer relates to fire-watching, particularly in factories. This question has been causing great concern to those who have

any connection with fire-watching. It is causing concern both to local authorities and to firms, because of the lack of clear and definite instructions. Order No. 69, of 1941, seemed to lay down quite clearly in general terms that this was a compulsory service, but I will give the House an example of what has been happening within my own experience. It concerns a first-class firm where the employers relationship with the workmen is of an exceptionally good character. When the scheme was brought out a committee of the workmen was appointed and the scheme was adjusted. It was submitted to the whole body of workmen, and there was no dissent. The scheme was put into operation, and, to begin with, it worked well. But there were one or two absentees. This was reported, but no action was taken, and since then the position has deteriorated until the fire-watching in that particular firm has become unsatisfactory.
That is only one example, but in many firms the position is a great deal worse. I have no doubt myself, from reading the Order, that fire-watching was intended to be compulsory, but the feeling is held by a great many firms that there is some doubt about it. For the information of the business community and of local authorities, I ask the Government to make a definite statement that this fire-watching is compulsory, and to state the date when it becomes compulsory. I take it that it becomes compulsory when the particular scheme is approved by the approving authority. If that is so, what percentage of the schemes submitted have been approved? In many large cities no schemes have been approved at all, and therefore fire-watching is not compulsory. I appeal to the Minister to adopt some method by which schemes can be approved quickly and put into execution quickly. It is not that workmen do not wish to bear their full share, but what they do not like is to be compelled to fire-watch, when X, Y and Z are getting off. They want some definite instruction from the top, as to what their duties are, and if these schemes are approved employers and employés will know where they are. I think the reason why many of these schemes have been held up, is because the authorities want to discuss water supply and other matters. But if they are satisfied with the question of


personnel, I suggest that schemes should be approved, and that these other points should be dealt with later on.
Another point arises in connection with this Order and the explanatory Memorandum. Those concerned do not know exactly what are the conditions of remuneration. Unfortunately, I have not a copy of the Memorandum with me, but that Order refers to allowances for refreshments, reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, and allowances for additional travelling expenses. One would have thought that there was no doubt about the intentions of the Order, and that this was to be an unpaid service, subject to certain allowances for refreshments, travelling and out-of-pocket expenses. I am told, however, that some firms are paying as high as 15s. a shift for fire-watching, when within a few hundred yards there are other firms trying to carry out the terms of this Order by paying 3s. in lieu of refreshment. What is the result? The firm which is trying to carry out the terms of the Order has a resentful body of employés. They do not understand why people in other firms are getting 15s. a shift while they are being offered only 3s., and in the same way confusion, dissatisfaction and trouble, arise. I appeal to the Minister to lay down in specific terms the allowances to be paid for fire-watching, and to make it universal throughout the country. If he does so he will go a long way to getting over fire-watching troubles.
In that Order, too, it is stated that there shall be exemption for those who are engaged on vital war work and are employed for exceptionally long hours. The Minister has suggested that the test might be 60 hours or over. Does that mean that a man whose week exceeds 60 hours is not to be available for duty as a fire-watcher during his ordinary working hours, because that view is being held and put forward? Again, this question of a 60-hour week is going to present a great deal of difficulty to the exemption authorities. At the time of exemption, a man may have been working 61 to 63 hours a week, but subsequently the number of hours he works may drop to a much shorter period. In certain industries, such as the engineering industry, men are working over 60 hours a week, but I am told from a very responsible quarter that the amount of fire-watching which would fall to a man

working over 60 hours a week could be so arranged in many firms that he did not do more fire-watching than seven hours per month. I do not think that would be an unreasonable demand as part of that time would be spent during his ordinary working hours. I appeal to the Minister to deal with this fire-watching problem at once. It is a matter which cannot stand delay. I beg him to make it perfectly plain that the Order is compulsory from the time a scheme is approved, and I ask him to adopt some method by which approval can be given quickly. I appeal to him to issue his instructions in clear and unambiguous terms, and to apply them throughout the whole country. I ask him to do so quickly, because the situation is chaotic in many respects and has great inherent dangers. I hope he will give attention to it.

Mr. Muff (Hull, East): It has been said that what we should aim at is something operational rather than administrative. I should like the House to consider, not the academic dissertation which was given earlier in the best and truest traditions of the Oxford Union, but what is actually happening and what has happened in Yorkshire, where the Regional Commissioner, no doubt, has many difficulties to overcome and many operational and administrative duties to perform. I am all the more glad to be able to do so because, I believe, the "Yorkshire Post," a paper which circulates in Yorkshire— [An HON. MEMBER: "From Trent to Tweed "]—sent its star reporter to interview the Lord Mayor of Plymouth. He is a very distinguished gentleman. He was co-opted as Lord Mayor not because of his knowledge of municipal administration but owing to other great qualities, and he has bitten the "Yorkshire Post" with the bug that we must have a super-gauleiter. From Trent to Tweed we are not in favour of being gauleited, or even super-gauleited.

Viscountess Astor: Did he use that word?

Mr. Muff: The noble Lady knows more about gauleiters than I do.

Viscountess Astor: Did the Lord Mayor of Plymouth use the word "gauleiter"?

Mr. Muff: He used the equivalent. But let us see what has been done in Yorkshire during actual blitzes. For a start


we were fortunate in having an old Member of the House as Regional Commissioner. He was a jolly good contact-maker, and one of the great qualifications of a Regional Commissioner is to be good at making contacts. I found in a very short time that he knew most of the town clerks and other public officers by their Christian names. Now that he has gone, I wish to pay tribute to him, and to add that the new Regional Commissioner also possesses those great qualities. We have been told that there must be co-operation. Yorkshire has its great townships and cities, with their local jealousies. Even before the fire brigade business was brought before the House, the fire brigade services of Yorkshire had been co-ordinated, and in the great attack upon a town in Yorkshire those fire brigades did their work magnificently. I want to mention how, in the matter of the reconditioning of houses, the great cities, and also the West Riding County Council, made their contribution by sending out what are affectionately known as the Leeds gang, the Bradford gang, and the Sheffield gang to recondition houses, and 15,000 houses were reconditioned in 15 weeks, which is no mean achievement. During the great attack, by 2.30 a.m. the preparation of breakfasts had begun though the place where breakfast was being made had been blitzed. Four thousand hot breakfasts were ready and distributed by 5.30 in the morning and 15,000 hot dinners were distributed by lunch-time.

Viscountess Astor: We did better than that at Plymouth.

Mr. Muff: I am very glad. It is an honourable competition and I want to keep up with the Noble Lady. The West Riding County Council has built up a great machinery and it provided over 200,000 meals in 10 or 12 days. It provided mobile kitchens, because unfortunately in one place some of the mobile kitchens had been destroyed, and some of the food had been destroyed. The food was brought and was cooked on the way. So I could go on. In 12 days 367,000 meals were provided by the British Restaurants. We call -them National Restaurants, because they have been in existence since the last war. They provide for the feeding of children and

can be called upon in emergencies to feed others as well.
The Regional Commissioner has been into one or two of the blitzed areas almost every week since he turned up. I went with him into a badly blitzed area. We walked about the streets. Many of us were dirty, and certainly the poor women were grimy as a result of the salvage work they were trying to do. I asked the Commissioner whether I might tell the women that he had come down himself just to see what was happening, and he said, "Yes." I think it was the first time that he had indulged in street corner oratory, especially in such conditions. He made a moving speech and then we had the perfect vote of thanks from a woman who said, "We have nothing but gratitude for the services which have been rendered to us by the community. I have got what money could not buy,'' and that was a loaf of bread. I thought that was a lovely vote of thanks. We also had a visit from a great American banker who brought with him a cheque to try to help the great distress. He went into the streets as Well. We did not go in for town hall lunches or speech-1 making. We went into the wreckage of a house. A woman was there just about to start in labour with a baby. We got her away. I said, "I hope", if it is a boy, you will call him ' Franklyn Delano Smith,' "and I hope they did so, in View of the cheque that we got.
There is some talk to the effect that if other Regional Commissioners were doing their job of work as well as it is being done in Yorkshire there should be no need for the Lord Mayor of Plymouth to rush into print or to put in either Lord Trenchard or anyone else. We shall not part with but municipal traditions, or our county council or even our urban district council traditions, very lightly. The great trouble before the war was the stone-walling at the Ministry of Health. The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) stonewalled us. I took a scheme to the Ministry on 28th September, 1938. It was complete even to the tin openers, but we were stonewalled. On 20th July, the following year, we went in despair to the Ministry and presented our scheme to them, but they said, "You cannot have blankets, and you have too many centres. You have 90 centres for your city, while London is asking for only


70."We needed those rest centres in my city. We do not want strangling with red tape from the Ministry of Health. There has, however, been an improvement with the change in the "high-ups." We want, not red tape, but a Regional Commissioner able to make quick decisions. One calamity occurred, not because of any local circumstances, but because of the Ministry of Supply, and we had not the power to shift certain articles. Give the Regional Commissioner more executive power and allow him to co-operate with the people in our urban, municipal and county authorities. The people themselves know the councillors and aldermen, not a good-looking lot in the main, but they are there to be interviewed and shot at. If the Government interfere with local powers and suppress them, it will be most ill-considered. I appeal to them to continue to seek for that loyal cooperation which has been given in the past. We have shown in our county, at any rate, that We can surmount the difficulties. We are not Coming here to cry stinking fish, for we believe there is something grand and good in our local administration.

Viscountess Astor: I am glad the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff) mentioned the Lord Mayor of Plymouth, because not only this House but the country ought to be grateful to him. Unless we had made a row after the first Plymouth blitz, we should not have had a State service. Then we are called gauleiters. I like that, coming from a Labour Member. I do not want to quarrel with the hon. Gentleman, but I thought that he would have cried for a State service.

Mr. Muff: We have it in Yorkshire.

Viscountess Astor: You have nothing of the kind. It is no good talking nonsense like that, and for Labour people to complain about a State service is a little too hot. I have heard inspired statements ever since we pressed for a State fire service—that the Astors were the first of the gauleiters, Nazis, Fascists and everything else. Now we are to have a State service. The war has a curious effect on some people, and a blitz has an even more curious effect. Nobody is more proud of local authorities or believes in them more than I do, but there is a right time and place for everything, and how anyone who

has been through a blitz can say that everything can be left to the local authorities I do not understand. I do not blame the Government for not having known what to do after one town had been blitzed, or even after two had been blitzed. Until a town has been blitzed nobody knows how he will act. Some of the bravest people shake, and some people who were thought cowardly are fearless. You ought to be grateful if you do not shake. There is no question of courage; it is something to do with nerves, and you cannot blame the people. But why the Government, after a first and second blitz, did not do something more active about home defence, is a mystery to me. For instance, were the Regional Commissioners allowed to get together and discuss their experiences? If they did get together and had some plans and if the Minister of Home Security turned them down, we ought to know.

We have got to wake up, because there is something definitely wrong. After towns have Seen burned We are at last to have a State fire service. I do not think that is enough, however. We must have not only a State fire service, but far greater co-ordination and co-operation between the boroughs and the county authorities. That never happened until we had the trouble down our way. Why did not the Regional Commissioners see to this?

Mr. Muff: We do it in Yorkshire.

Viscountess Astor: I know Yorkshire, and I am suspicious of people who say that everything is beautiful in the garden. We have too much of that. Things are not beautiful in the garden. I know things that have happened in Yorkshire, and you would not like me to say what they are. Our record in Plymouth is better than most. We reconditioned more houses in a quicker time, although we did not do it by ourselves. We had help. Although we did well, however, we could have done far better if the Government after the first, second or third blitz had had some plans to deal with blitzes and the appalling social problems that come after them. Members of the House of Commons knew about these regional problems. Why did they not talk about them instead of waiting and letting things get as bad as they are? I want to know why there is no co-ordina-


tion between counties and boroughs. For instance, people go to rest centres in the county but the boroughs have no control over them; there is not enough co-operation between the county and borough authorities. That ought to be looked into by the Government. They cannot be so complacent about it. The Minister of Education says that he has no plan. Surely it must have been a very impromptu speech, because he knows that you would get no education without a plan.
There must be more foresight and planning. At last we have a central fire-fighting service now and must have far more central organisation if we are to face this winter. I know the courage and endurance which are shown and the wonderful work that is done in every blitzed town. I know how well the people can take it, but there will come a breaking point unless there is better organisation. I agree with the man at Bristol who, when an American asked, "How long do you think you can take it?" replied, "One week longer than the Germans." I am not one of those, like the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who talks about losing the war. That has never entered my mind, and I have never met anybody who thought we could lose the war. We are, however, taking grave risks with our civil population unless we have a better plan for the winter than we have had so far, and I wish to ask the Government whether any of the Regional Commissioners after the first, second, or even the third blitz said that certain things ought to be done, and why they were not done. The House of Commons ought to know. Now you can slightly criticise the Government without being called a fifth columnist, which is such a relief. Are the Government going to say that there is enough co-operation between the county authorities and the boroughs?
One of the real problems of blitzed towns is billeting, not inside but outside the town. If the billeting officers are rural or urban officers, they cannot do the job. How can they go to the people they know and tell them they must take other people into their houses? They just do not do it. It ought to be done by the county or region. I hear talk of great difficulty about large houses stand-

ing empty, but that is not the problem; it is the small houses. Owners do not want billetees, and who can blame them? One of the dreadful things about this war is having one's home life invaded. This is a woman's war, and one of the reasons why it is not being more effectively waged is because you have not more women in the Government. I have noticed from my experience in Plymouth that often men have not seen the conditions. There is too much manliness about this Government. I want a little more womanliness; I want a little more common sense about it. I have often noticed that men just write out an order and think that the job is done. A woman will not do that; she chooses to see that the job is done. Take the question of billeting. Billeting officers in most cases are men. They really ought to have some co-operation with the women of the localities, who could help them enormously. I have never heard of a woman being a billeting officer. [hon. members: "There are hundreds."] Head billeting officers?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I cannot tell the Noble Lady that, but I would almost say that in the majority of cases the people who actually arrange and do the billeting, find the homes, and introduce the children to the homes, are women.

Viscountess Astor: I am asking whether there is a head billeting officer who is a woman. You cannot tell me, because you have not got one. I know the women are doing all the work, but if any head jobs have been given to women, I have not found one yet. I have found the men doing the bossing and doing it pretty badly. Let the Government remember that they should not rely on the billeting officer of a small rural area; it must be the county. I beg them to keep that well in mind. As for the suggestion that the Minister of Health had offered to make Plymouth an evacuation area and that we had turned that down, twice the Lord Mayor of Plymouth asked that Plymouth should be made an evacuation area, and twice this proposal was turned down. The problem of some of these targets when there is a blitz is that one finds that the billets outside are full of people from other parts of the country. There is no place for the people who have to be evacuated from the targets. That is because there has


been no central planning, no vision. In certain areas, if blitzes continue, I believe you will have to recall people who have been put in reception areas adjoining targets. Take the case of Londoners, for instance, evacuated to Cornwall and Devon. You may have to take them away, and those people will have to go to Wales or Scotland or elsewhere. You cannot expect—

Mr. Buchanan: Why say Scotland? There is not enough accommodation to take children from the City of Glasgow. If things are bad in Plymouth, do not make them worse elsewhere.

Viscountess Astor: Is the hon. Member quite certain that the Highlands in Scotland are full?

Mr. Buchanan: I am quite certain about Glasgow's problem. I am told I cannot get these people evacuated. I cannot answer for other cities, but I know something of Glasgow.

Viscountess Astor: That may be right—

Mr. Buchanan: It is not "may be"; I am right.

Viscountess Astor: The hon. Gentleman is always charming, but he is not always right.

Mr. Buchanan: I am speaking about Glasgow, which I know something about, and the Noble Lady does not.

Viscountess Astor: I was only speaking of the hon. Member. It was put to me by a person who has been all round— I do not know it myself—that in the Highlands of Scotland there are plenty of areas where people might be sent. It is certainly a very stupid policy, if you know a town is a likely target, to fill the surroundings with people from distant parts. You ought, in the very beginning, to have kept a ring about that town, to which, if a blitz came, the people could be moved. It was lack of foresight on the Government's part. I do not suppose they are so complacent as they look. I do not think it would be possible. I see them smiling broadly when people are making speeches. It is a brave smile, to keep up courage; I am glad they have it. Where an area has been bombed there have been instances of people not having been given billets for weeks.
I am becoming even more distressed by the absence of planning by the Minister of Health with regard to children. There is something to answer for that I would not like to have to do. Before the war began we went to the Minister of Health and the President of the Board of Education and gave them a plan for children between two and five years. We realised it would be difficult later on to evacuate them. I am not one of those people who believe in compulsory evacuation of children under two years. I do believe in compulsory evacuation of children out of shelters. That ought to be done. But I know as a woman and a mother that it is not so easy. Voluntary evacuation of children of from two to five years could have gone on and does go on when you can offer mothers adequate reception facilities—nursery schools—and guarantee that the children will be looked after. We told them that they could get voluntary helpers and trained women. We told them that they would have to have communal feeding in the villages. They turned it down. They have done nothing until pushed and pressed. What we need is a little more lead. We should not always have to press the Minister of Health and the President of the Board of Education. They ought to be giving a lead to the country. I read with horror that the Minister of Labour wanted "minders" for the children in Lancashire and in Yorkshire. By this, when women go to work, they would leave their children with someone for a payment. I would remind the House that the prevalence of rickets where the system has been tried is high.
When we heard that the Minister of Labour was suggesting that minders should be found, we thought there would be uproar about it, but I have not heard of much, except from a few women's organisations. It is a dreadful thing to do. One of the greatest crimes that we can commit at the present time is to allow any preventable disease to continue. Rickets in children is responsible for a great deal of discomfort in after-life, and only after every other resource has failed should children be left to minders. I can quite understand the position which arises when it is necessary suddenly to ask 60,000 women to go into industry, but the Minister of Labour should not have been allowed to recommend minders


until the Ministry of Health had combed the whole countryside to provide accommodation for the children—taken over large houses and small houses and put the children in those houses under conditions where they would get proper care and attention and all the necessary food and recreation.
One of the real tragedies is that there have been too many men in the Ministry of Health and too many men in the Ministry of Education, and I must say that the one lady in the Ministry of Health does not understand children. I do not want to be rude; it is not her fault. I am not blaming her. I have often said that the greatest work ever done for children was done by single women, for instance, Margaret Macmillan. I am not blaming her, but this particular lady does not happen to be interested in children— [Interruption.]—If you had been interested in children, you would have done far more.

Miss Horsbrugh: It is pleasing to look up the Official Report and to see the great compliment which the Noble Lady paid me when I was bringing in a Bill for the adoption of children. On that occasion she said she complimented me, said that single women had done a great deal for children and there here was another instance of it. Perhaps the Noble Lady will read that, and then I hope she will regret what she has said.

Viscountess Astor: I have looked at the record since you have been in the Minis try of Health, and there is not a woman in this House who will not say that when you got into the Ministry of Health we all thought that you would make the children your first problem. You know perfectly well—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I would remind the Noble Lady that when she says "You" she is addressing me.

Viscountess Astor: I am not blaming you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. But we all know that there is a plan for dealing with children in residential nurseries, and we wonder why that plan has not been brought forward before. No one who was really interested in children would have neglected the opportunity. The men there think that because they have

one woman at the Ministry everything possible has been done. [Interruption.] If you were my sister—I beg pardon—if the hon. Lady were my sister, I would say the same thing. In politics and in public life one cannot be influenced by friendship. In public life one has to take note of who are doing things and who are doing them properly. That is why I am so worried when people say, "How dare you attack the local authorities?" Local authorities are perfectly good in peace-time, but I do not for a moment consider that I am less of a democrat than anybody in the country when I say there are certain things which local authorities cannot do in war-time. They cannot do them, because the problems are not local concerns but national concerns. For another thing, how often do people get on to local authorities for party reasons? They get elected because they have served the party, and sometimes they are there because they are hard up for a job. [Interruption.] There are a good many Members who might be doing better in their constituencies than some of them are doing, but I am not going into that, because "dog does not eat dog."
.
Really, there is a war on. An hon. Member asks, "Where?" There has been a war on in Plymouth, certainly, for two years. Never a ship goes down, but there is suffering in Plymouth. No one can live in a port without feeling intensely the sorrows of war. That leaves one with very little regard for personal feelings when it comes to public affairs. Personal friendships have to be wiped out. I beg the Minister of Home Defence, the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Labour to remember that the first thought—ahead of the soldiers and sailors and airmen—should be the care of the children of the country. If the children are properly looked after, it will do more to stiffen up the troops than any other single thing we can do. Men who have come back from service almost broken would go back gladly if only they knew that their children were looked after. In Plymouth we have always tried to maintain every interest associated with the welfare of the children. I tell the Minister of Health that he must make more effort to get those 42,000 children under five years old out of London—those that want to go. Further, the Government must make greater efforts in Lancashire and Yorkshire to provide


nursery centres and nursery residential schools in preference to turning over children to minders. I thought the idea of minders for children had gone years ago. It never occurred to me that we should ever hear of them again.
I do not attack the Government for fun. I think it is dreadful to have to do it. We all want to stand up for the Government, but we should try to strengthen it where it needs strengthening. That is what I call being loyal—strengthening the Government where it needs strengthening, criticising it when it needs to be criticised, and helping in every way we can. The only thing is that we must not be complacent, as the Minister of Home Security is about Civil Defence. We shall have to be wide awake in the coming winter. There are a great many things that can be done in the way of providing rest centres, shelters, and food, and we must be ready to help any town that has been blitzed. It seems to me that people do not realise the weariness of the local authorities. It is not the case that they are unwilling to do things, but they get tired and worn out. One of the things which has been a great inspiration to me is to see the way in which the people take losses. Their houses and everything they have got may have been lost to them, but I can truthfully say that I have seen no wavering anywhere. The other day I came up from the West of England with five mothers who were returning from a visit to their children. I wish I could give the individual story of each woman. The husband of one had been badly wounded in the last war, and died five years ago. Every one of them had some tragic story. They all lived in bombed areas of London. I asked them, "Have you heard of anyone giving in?" They all answered "No," but one woman added, "Well, yes, there was one woman who said she wished Hitler were coming. And, my goodness, we did deal with her."
In my opinion the spirit of the country is so far ahead of the spirit of the Government that there is no comparison. Look at the Minister of Home Security: frightened to say "Boo" to a goose. Nobody is more frightened of the local authorities than he is. They can go on making one blunder after another before they are pulled up. I do not find that in my town. I find that people are not really interested in politics at all. They

are interested only in getting things done. They do not care who does them. They are not so sensitive about democracy. They know perfectly well that when the war is over we shall be free. I do not think anybody is frightened that an Englishman or a Scotsman, or even a Welshman, will not be free when the war is over.

Mr. Lipson: Can the Noble Lady give the House an instance where a local authority has failed in its duty and the Ministry of Home Security have failed to take action?

Viscountess Astor: My goodness, does the hon. Member really want me to give him instances? What about the mayors of London?

Mr. Lipson: I think the Noble Lady ought to substantiate what she said.

Viscountess Astor: It would be almost indecent to do so. Why, the mayors of London were not even in their places when the town was blitzed.

Mr. Buchanan: Will it be in order for the Noble Lady to give this information, after what the Prime Minister said? If this subject is to be started at all, and it is a very serious matter, I should like to say a word or two. I should like to know whether it is in order.

Viscountess Astor: I would not like to do sit, and I am surprised that anybody could ask the question. The hush-hush policy about local authorities and the lack of courage on the part of the Minister are responsible for a great deal of preventible misery. Look at the Order which has just been put out about clothes. Everybody thought that you could not ration clothes because, for one thing, the women would all make a row about it; but the women are delighted. I repeat that the country is behind the Government, and is ready for sacrifice. The country is ready to do anything that the Government ask them to do, but the Minister of Home Security has not dared to ask the country to do anything. He is too tender about the country's imaginary feelings. Do we, who have been asked to give up our sons and the things that we hold most dear in life, mind giving up our little privileges? No. It is really tragic that the Government have not been bolder and have not given a better lead. After the towns were


blitzed they did not have a plan. They have not shown the House what was wrong and how to put it right. I do not think that was fair to the country.
I would like to speak about the women of the country. If any body of persons has ever proved itself brave, gallant, enduring and long-suffering, it is the women of the country. After all, this is a woman's war. They are fighting it in their homes, in the factories and everywhere. I beg the Government and I ask the Minister of Health, particularly where the children are concerned, not to come and give us long accounts of what they are going to do, but to have a more forward policy about the children. Get the help of a great many people who have not yet been asked to help. I ask the President of the Board of Education to remember, in connection with the new residential nursery schools which he is setting up—he said that he was going to have one of his local education inspectors to inspect them—to see that this inspector knows something about nursery schools. It is no good having somebody to inspect schools who does not know anything about them. I am sure the House will agree with me that the one thing men do not understand is children between the ages of two and five years. If the Board of Education really want to be certain that their residential nursery schools and other nursery schools are being run on the proper lines and the children getting proper treatment, they have to increase their inspectorate. They should have people with knowledge of the subject.
I feel very strongly on this subject of home defence, and I am sorry to have kept the House for so long. I hope the Government will take the matter more seriously and will realise that if things had been well, we should not have made this row about it. They have been really lacking in courage, foresight and determination. I think they have misrepresented the spirit of the people of the country; otherwise, they would have gone ahead with the most drastic and revolutionary things. Nobody minds giving up liberty during war-time. We are perfectly certain that when the war is over we shall get it all back again.

Mr. Buchanan: A good many of my colleagues are anxious to speak, and I promise the House that I

will not detain it long. Some of those hon. Members have an equal right with any other hon. Member to intervene. The Noble Lady referred to Scotland. I intend to confine my remarks largely to the question of the evacuation of children. She made a remark concerning city children. I do not know about her local conditions, and it may be very impertinent of me to refer to the matter, but she said they could be taken away to Scotland and other places.

Viscountess Astor: Not the children. I was talking about evacuating people.

Mr. Buchanan: One of the reasons why I have risen is because of the question of the evacuation of children. In the main, the Government have been right so far, and particularly the present Home Secretary. Before he occupied his Government post he pursued the very laudable object of getting the children out of London. I think he was right in every effort he made, long before he held his present post. It is much better to get children out before anything happens than to wait until tragedy actually occurs. I represent part of a city that in peace-time was a human tragedy in many respects. Anybody who knows my native city of Glasgow will be aware of the piles of tenement houses. I represent what is probably—and I claim no credit for this —the densest portion of the most densely populated city in the country. Many of the tenements are situated close to iron and steel works, docks and shipyards. One begins to feel how terrible the consequences to such areas would be if the same thing happened there as has occurred in other towns.
I am not a brave man at all. I envy brave men and have a great regard for them. Every week-end I go home to my division, and I fear what would happen in the event of a terrible raid. There are children packed in my city to-day. I rarely speak now in this House. I do not take the interest in it that I used to take, but one of the things I feel something about still is to get the Government to move the children out. I make a plea to the Home Secretary, who, in the past, has not always been hide-bound by what somebody else has done at some other time, to look again at two or three aspects of this problem. It may be selfish of working people, but we have to take


people as we find them and not regret that they are not as we would like them to be. I ask him to look at the question of billeting allowances.
When you take children away you start to inquire what their father earns and you start to charge him 6s. a week for each child. Then he has to keep himself. By the time these things are settled, the motive for sending the children off has been taken away. Even if it costs the Government full maintenance, I would rather have the children saved than that the Government should save a few miserable pounds on the billeting allowance. I ask the Government whether the interference is worth while of counting up on a means test basis, and then allocating a billeting allowance, in order to get the children away. It is more important to save the children's lives in these days. Is it not worth while to make a new approach to the matter and that the Government should take on the responsibility for the evacuation of children?
The second point I want to raise is with regard to my own city, but it applies to others as well, and first of all may I say, as a representative of Scotland, that it seems to me to be stupid that the Regional Commissioner and the Ministry of Labour headquarters in Scotland should be situated in Edinburgh? To-day Glasgow has a population of almost 1,250,000, and its whole industrial area represents well over 2,000,000 people. I would never dream of saying a word about Edinburgh, but the centre of industrial population today in Scotland is Glasgow. [Interruption.] But we are told by the Home Secretary to be realists, and the reality in Scotland to-day is that the centre of industrial population is the city of Glasgow. When you want to see the Regional Commissioner or to go to the divisional headquarters of the Ministry of Labour you do not go to the centre where the population is; you have to scamper off to Edinburgh. In peace-time I would not have bothered a say a word, but to-day I say that anyone who knows the industrial situation in Scotland would agree that the two chief offices ought to be in the main centre of the industrial population. I do not say that Edinburgh will be attacked. I hope to goodness it will not. The likeliest place for attack is the West. If I

were in the Scottish office and looking at the matter from a war point of view, I would move those two important offices to Glasgow.
What is the situation in regard to young children now in my city? To-day that situation, in my view, is a tragedy. If you are well off, you can get your children out. If I had children, I have no doubt that, as a Member of Parliament, I could get them outside the city, but poor people who have children simply cannot get them out of the city of Glasgow. Who would defend that? I have been to the Scottish office and to the education authorities, and have asked what is to be done with children under five. Their answer is that if a place can be found for them, they will pay the billeting allowance. Who is going to pretend that without some form of compulsion children under five will be received? I do not blame the people who refuse to take them in, but if you take the position of people in Glasgow with children under five and earning a labourer's wage of £ 5s. or £3 10s. a week, it is absolutely impossible for them to find a place for their children. When I raised this issue with the Civil Defence Commissioner the answer I got was that there was no place to send them, and that is what made me intervene. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald) and the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) were present at the meeting. They had not got the places. Frankly, it will be no defence for me, nor for anyone else, to go up yonder and say that that is the reason why the children were not taken away. The comfortably-off section of the community can find places. I am not making any accusations, I think they are right to take them away from the city, and I am only claiming that poverty should be no bar to the removal of the children of the poor.
I will quote the case of a man from my Division. He has eight children, and so far the law has not said that that is wrong. He is employed by the Glasgow local authority at a wage of about £3 15s. a week. He wrote and asked me if I could get a place for his children. I found that there were people prepared to take the children of school age, but for the four younger ones nothing could be done. I had courteous correspondence from the Under-Secretary, and I was referred to the


education authority. I went to them and could not get a place. I telephoned the county offices in Lanarkshire, Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, and could not get a place, and the four children remained there. If anything happens, it will be no answer for me, nor, I am certain, for anybody else, to say that nothing could be done. I am quite certain that something could be done. If you cannot get houses, perhaps some other accommodation could be arranged, and, frankly, if I could get away from putting people into other folks' houses, I would. I am not anxious to put two families together. When I was first married my wife and I had to live with her sister in the same house, and after three months even people who have always been the best of friends find that that is difficult. I felt that both of them wanted to run the house their own way, and that did not suit me. I do not want two families in one house if I can avoid it. If I have to accept it in preference to living in a very dangerous district, I will do so, for, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is not a choice between two goods, it is often a choice between two bads. 
I remember that when the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) was at the Ministry of Health he made great play about school camps. What has happened to all the school camps we were to have? Who is in them? I have never heard much about them, and I do not know. Would it not be possible, even in these days of restricted supplies, to construct some kind of hostel or hutments where there would be a sense of discipline and people could have good food, good clothing and the decencies of life? The local authorities are not to blame. They have no share or part in this at all. If I know my local authorities, they are anxious to get the children out, and I would say it is the Government's job. I agree with the Noble Lady in regard to billeting. I went out last week into a beautiful part of Lanarkshire called Braid-wood with my wife to try and get a house. We went to the billeting officer, who was the local schoolmaster. They could not have made a better choice. He was a good man, but to ask him to go up to the local gentry and say they had to do this and that is not fair. I am a trade union chairman, and I would not have liked to start and do it with my bosses.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I would.

Mr. Buchanan: You might; you are a brave man, and I am not. I certainly would not have liked to put anybody else in that position. The billeting officers should be either local authority employés or State employés, free from any such pressure. They ought to be men of independent judgment. In the old days, for workmen's compensation we used to have to see the company's doctor, and we always wanted the doctor to be a State servant. The point is the same in this case. May I just say to the two Parliamentary Secretaries that I hope neither of them is becoming too superior. I seem to see a slight tendency in that direction. If I am wrong I shall be glad to be corrected, but some of us feel these days that we are glad to get even a nod from a Parliamentary Secretary.
I hope that I shall not be tempted to discuss local authorities which have not come up to scratch. There are some things that I could say about them which I do not think it would be a good thing, from the country's point of view, to mention. But in one town it came to my knowledge that the provost is 81 years of age. He was a man who in normal times would be, even at that age, a good administrator; but that sort of thing is not right in these days. I have not got a sacred view of local authorities and of national bodies, or even of the State. Just as you should attack local authorities for mistakes, so you should attack the State machine for mistakes. All I want is the best thing for saving human life. If it is the best way, let us do it through the State; if it is the best way., let us do it through the local authorities; or, if it is the best way, let us do it by a combination of both. In the main, I have found the City of Glasgow efficient, although there are one or two things there that I would like to see co-ordinated and improved, particularly in regard to demolition squads and their interchange between towns. I am not anxious to make the police a national bureaucracy under the Home Office, but there is room for improvement in regard to them. In the County of Lanark there are boroughs that have their own chief constables. [An hon. Member: "Why not?"] Because I do not think it is an efficient method. You might as well have a lot of little chief constables in the City of Glasgow. In Glasgow, with


its population of 1,250,000, it works well to have one chief constable, but these counties are units. The question should be examined again. What does it matter about a local man's position? If it works more efficiently a certain way, it should be done that way. I ask the Home Secretary to look again at the method of billeting the children, to see whether it is worth while to carry on this petty means test, and whether it would not be better to make it a State charge. He might see whether something in the nature of hutments could not be established. Whatever our views on the war—and my views are certainly not popular—we are all agreed that we should lift the children from the battle-field.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: I should like to congratulate the Home Secretary upon the scheme for the A.F.S., and, above all, upon the idea of a staff college for the officers and sub-officers. Many of the men joined before the war as part-timers. The people who got promoted were those who had no full-time occupation, and who, therefore, had more time to devote to the service. Those who joined up afterwards had no opportunity for promotion, because the early bird had got the worm. Many of the best men consequently left the service. Two men of my own sub-station left because they saw absolutely no future for themselves in the Fire Service, and they are now officers in the Armed Forces, and are both doing well. One of them, quite an exceptional man, who is an officer in the Royal Marines now, said to me before he left, "I have to go, for I see absolutely no future and no chance of promotion here." This new college should alter that state of affairs, and should encourage people who put in a great deal of time and are really keen on their job. There are plenty of good men to select from, without going outside the service. I do not think it is either necessary or desirable to try to get people from the Army or the Navy, who have no fire-fighting experience. We have plenty of men with initiative and experience who will make excellent officers. I will give one example of an early type of officer—a type, I am glad to say, which is not common. In one of the Midland cities, during a blitz, there was a building on fire, and halfway down the street a gas main was burning. This officer had all his jet

playing on the gas main, which could not be put out by water, and the building was left to burn. He would not allow anybody to tell him what he should do. Such officers must be got rid of.
Another point which has probably been touched upon elsewhere is that of water supply. It is usual, when you go to a big blaze, to find that all the mains are cut, or most of them, and that Hitler has chosen a night when the tide is out. Static water is a tremendous help, and though the water tanks that you see at the bottom of the street do not hold sufficient water, at any rate, they are a tremendous help if you get to work before a fire gets a hold, and even if the fire has got a hold, it gives you time to get up your water units. But more can be done, and, I believe, is being done in cementing cellars and bomb holes. A certain amount of care will have to be used in residential areas, because it is very easy to fill a cellar with water, which when bombed will then flood somebody else's shelter and possibly drown them. Therefore your cellars will have to be carefully placed and be more or less at the bottom of a hill or be well safeguarded.
There is the question of empty houses, many of which are still locked. When you get into them, you may find the water supply cut off. If you could have the bath filled with water or even the water supply laid on, it would be a tremendous


help, and you would often be able to get a fire out by means of the stirrup pump before it had got any appreciable hold. Another question which may well crop up and one in regard to which I do not know whether it has yet attracted the attention of the Ministry, is that of hours. In London the hours are approximately 48 on and 24 off, and I understand that in the country it varies, being sometimes 24 hours on and 24 hours off, or 12 hours on and 12 hours off, with every eighth day off. There is some feeling among certain people who think that, if the force is unified, there should be an investigation into the question of hours. That is a matter which, naturally, must be left for other people, but it will probably have to be looked into. I suggest an extension of the interchange of men for rest periods. People who have been in blitzed towns for months on end, obviously, not only need rest, but they have also had experience which would be very valuable to other men. You may get some men in a quiet country town or village who have not had an opportunity of seeing a fire unless they have been sent to finish mopping-up when the danger is over. If they could be sent to mix with and to relieve some of the brigades in cities or other places, it would be of great advantage to them and a great relief to the cities.
I am particularly glad to hear that there is to be a personnel officer. In the early days of the service there was a great deal left to be desired in the welfare of the various brigades, particularly in the sub-stations. Everything depended upon the local officers, and some of these officers with the best will in the world had no idea of welfare work. One had only to see the difference between a well-run station and one in which people had to put up with quite unnecessary discomforts. One of the early questions, the conditions with regard to which have now been made much better, was that of the standby crews. Often when a district was emptied, all the pumps having gone on to fires, the other crews coming in to fill their places and stand by for orders were wet and cold, there was no shelter for them, and it was an impossibility, owing to rationing, to give them a cup of tea. Things have been very much improved, but there are still cases where improve-

ment is needed. When we come back, perhaps from some fire in the early or late morning and we have to standby in case of need, before going home, we would be very glad of a cup of tea but often cannot get it. On one occasion I warmed myself by holding a hurricane lamp between my legs, but there are not enough hurricane lamps to go round. The mobile canteen supply is very much better than it was. I wish to pay a word of tribute to the courage of the girls who work in these vans, the way in which they come out in the blitz and are always brave and cheery and do absolute wonders for us.
There is the question of clothes, which has always been rather a difficulty. The regular fireman has three suits of clothes, and the part-time fireman has one tunic and one pair of trousers, though he is sometimes able to scrounge another one. The ordinary full-time A.F.S. man has still one tunic, which is supposed to be waterproof, and two pairs of trousers. But things are very difficult if you come back from a fire and are still on your 48 hours and you are blitzed the next night, for there are no drying arrangements available. It means that a man takes a tremendous risk of catching a cold, or pneumonia, or rheumatism. In one or two provincial brigades they have hot-air dryers, and the men are looked after in that way. I do not know whether it is possible in London or elsewhere to do anything of that kind. I know that it may not be possible at all stations, but it ought to be possible to do something. Perhaps something is being done, and I do not know about it.
There is the question of sick and injury claims. Sick pay, I am glad to say, has been much improved lately. The old system under which no auxiliary fireman could be ill for more than three weeks in the year without losing his pay, unless he could prove that he had been engaged on some particular fire when he caught his chill, has now been abolished, and this now comes under the same conditions as the injury pay. If a man is injured doing his duty at a fire, if he is a regular fireman, he is all right, because he enlisted as a regular fireman before the war. The auxiliary fireman gets 8–13 weeks full pay, after which he goes on to the Civil Defence injury pay of 35s. a week, and is discharged from the brigade. That is


a point upon which the men feel very strongly because they fear that their wives may suffer if they are injured during their duty. The Home Secretary has the reputation of standing up for his men through thick and thin. I wish that in this case he would stand up to the Treasury, or whoever it is that blocks him from doing what I know he would like to do and fight their case for them. I believe that the cost would be exceptionally small, I cannot say the exact figure but I think about 2,000 firemen have been injured in London and about 12½per cent. only, about 250, would be affected. Therefore the actual cash cost to the Treasury would be very small indeed but the psychological and moral effect upon the men would be tremendous. I hope that the Home Secretary will really take up this case. If he will do so he will have a "happy ship." I am not attacking him personally, but the men really do feel very strongly on this matter.
I would like to pay a word of tribute to the courage of A.R.P. workers, and especially to the rescue squads, with whom I have been out several times. No. 71, Westminster, I saw, doing gallant work, and one lady doctor working with them particularly struck me by her courage and calm. Ambulance drivers, canteen vans, police and nurses have shown extraordinary courage, and I think the Ministry of Health can be congratulated on the way they try to look after those who have been injured. When I left hospital this morning I talked to some of the patients, including young girls, with their arms and legs off, who were injured seven or eight weeks ago yet who are cheery and full of courage. I hope and believe that the Government will do their best to look after their future. They believe so too, and that is the reason why they are so cheery.
May I say a word about fire watchers? An hon. Member opposite said that not all people have the same amount of courage. That is one of the difficulties of fire watching. It is no use putting a man on a roof to do duty as a fire spotter if he is going to dive underground the first time a bomb comes near. He may not be able to help it, and it is not for me to suggest a remedy, but it is a problem that will have to be faced. One final thing. I wonder whether there has been sufficient co-operation between the Services and the Civil Defence services in

the way of practices for invasion or air invasion. I think it would be of great advantage if we could be certain that cooperation really was taking place in the Defence areas so that everybody knew exactly what his job was and how he was to co-operate

Mr. Simmonds: I am sure the House will like to join me in congratulating the hon. Baronet who has just sat down on his return to the House and on the practical information he has given us about the fine Service of which he is so courageous a member. The hon. Member who opened this Debate, the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest), and others, have referred to the recent report of the Select Committee on Civil Defence. Although we may not like what that report says in a number of places, when we are charged with our own local information or our information spread over long periods, the fact remains that there is a considerable number of important considerations which I hope the Government will most earnestly consider. Of these I think the most fundamental is the suggestion that there should be a unified Ministry controlling what my hon. and gallant Friend has called home defence. That, I am afraid, is an argument upon which I cannot follow him, and I think it is so fundamental to our whole conception of Civil Defence that I should spend one or two moments in dealing with the matter.
Perhaps I might, first of all, recall to the House that there has been a considerable number of members of the A.R.P. Committee on this side of the House who for more than four years now have been studying these problems. We have lived from week to week in the continuing growth of air-raid precautions, and possibly there are some of us who might see this particular aspect of the problem a little more clearly than those who have not had the privilege of watching the growth of air-raid precautions and who have been plunged into present problems, which are apparent for everyone to see. Initially, I believe every hon. Member present who considered Civil Defence hoped there could be one central Department administering it, but as it became obvious that Civil Defence was not merely sticking paper over windows and carrying gas masks but was the whole life of the


nation, lived under blitz conditions, it became clear that the idea of one Department being responsible for the whole of Civil Defence would be a cumbrous' and unwieldy proposition. It is inevitable, when you get widespread attacks on a given neighbourhood, that the whole of the normal peace-time services should be involved in that attack. Therefore, all Departments, whether Government, local authority or county council, are immediately involved in every aspect of that air attack, and if that be admitted, it follows that you cannot hope at this late stage to wipe out the varying responsibility for these different aspects of our national existence and throw them into one Department, however well it may be staffed or however brilliantly it may be led.
I think the proposal in the report to give regions more power is the right one, but if we are to do that, I think there is one impression that must be completely removed—the impression which seems to exist in some Departments that regional organisation is a Home Office organisation, responsible only to the Home Office. That, I believe, prevents every Department, particularly the Ministry of Health, from using a regional organisation in the way in which it is essential that it should be used, and I would recommend my right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security to consider in what way that disability of the regional organisation can be removed. My hope would be that the Commissioners offices in the regions should be the only channel of contact between the local authorities and the various Government Departments. At the moment local authorities are ordered about by every Tom, Dick and Harry in Whitehall where Civil Defence is involved. There are multifarious forms and returns which, as they affect those who are operationally employed at night, are infuriating and frightening. I have an example here from a local authority in the London area, in the county of Middlesex, and it cites the question of feeding the population. Here are the authorities which must be consulted—emergency, communal feeding and Ministry of Health feeding, but for the rest centres the public assistance authority through the local authority for the first 48 hours, then the local authority itself, the cost being recoverable by the county council from the Ministry of

Health. Well, I suggest that that type of lack of organisation at this stage is preposterous and must be altered.
Another great advantage of giving the regions more control over the local authorities would be that it would bring about a fairer distribution of the forces and facilities under the various local authorities in the region. As an example, I will cite the case of one London borough where there are no less than 1,700 men retained on clearance and demolition work at a cost of £250,000 a year, with a 100 per cent. grant from the Exchequer. That local authority prides itself that it clears away debris immediately, and that in most cases within a fortnight, during the summer months, it has sown grass on the cleared areas. All I will say is that we would think ourselves very lucky in the City of Birmingham if we could do anything like half that. Surely, the time has come when these facilities of the local authorities should be co-ordinated and possibly pooled under the Regional Commissioner.
But it is not enough to say that this should be done under the Regional Commissioner. How should it be done? Should it be done by making him all-powerful and eliminating the local authority, as has been suggested, or should it be done by giving the Regional Commissioner only nominal power and leaving the local authority more or less where it is to-day? I think the answer is that there should be a compromise between those two extremes. The Regional Commissioner ought to be in a position to issue to the local authorities, on behalf of all Government Departments and of himself, specific instructions covering the whole of Civil Defence. In this connection, I want to refer to what seems to me to be a very important point in a letter which I received this morning from the town clerk and Air-Raid Precautions controller of the City of Birmingham. This is the view of Birmingham:
The grant of wider powers to Regional Commissioners to make decisions on matters connected with Civil Defence Services would be welcomed by most local authorities who are anxious to extend or vary arrangements in the light of experience. It is, however, regarded as essential that any such extension of power should be accompanied by the provision of an advisory council for each region consisting of representatives of local authorities possessing personal, practical knowledge of the organisation, administration, and problems of Civil


Defence. Such a council should meet at regular intervals to discuss and advise on policy, and on such matters as members may desire to bring before the council to effect co-ordinated action among authorities in the region, and so to secure uniformity in such matters as service conditions and amenities and to enable those who have to administer the services to discuss practical problems and their solution.
I commend that as being an important suggestion, to which I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security will give close thought when he replies. It is not enough, however, for us to have a proper chain of responsibility between the local authorities and the region. We must also have proper liaison between the Government Departments. I was shocked only a few days ago to hear that one of our great cities had need, in the light of various raids, of additional water supplies for fire fighting. A proposal was sent to the Ministry of Home Security. It was accepted by that Ministry as being a matter which it could discuss and handle. After three months that local authority was informed that the Ministry of Home Security had decided that this was not a matter for the Ministry of Home Security but a matter for the Ministry of Health. I call it a wicked piece of maladministration, when our cities are being burned down through lack of water, that any Ministry should more or less pigeon-hole in this manner an important proposition from a local authority. I would not mention that if it were an isolated incident, but every hon. Member who has taken an interest in the question of inter-departmental responsibility for Home Defence knows that it happens very frequently and on equally important matters. Therefore, I would like to ask the Government—it may be a matter for the Prime Minister—whether they will appoint a small inter-departmental committee of the Departments concerned to be charged with ironing out these absurd delays and misunderstandings between the Departments. I do not think any other change that is made will solve the problem unless this one step is taken.
With regard to the local authorities themselves, there is one point that I want to make At the head of most of the air-raid precautions organisations of the local authorities there is the town clerk. Generally he has a deputy who is, in fact, the operational head of the services. I know that in certain cases the town clerks

themselves are doing most excellent and courageous work as operational controllers, but those cases are very few. I suggest that the town clerks should be given the post for which, generally speaking, they are most suited by their experience and which, considering the increasing amount of work in connection with feeding and other matters that is being placed on their shoulders, would be most suitable to them from the point of view of the time available to them. Why not make the deputies the operational controllers and the town clerks the administrative controllers of air-raid precautions in the local authorities? That is a change which we ought to envisage.
As to the air-raid precautions personnel, I believe I shall be speaking for almost all hon. Members on this side when I say that we conceive of Civil Defence as being an unpaid service, as far as possible. I say" as far as possible "because, of course, the fire-fighting services and other services in some areas where it is difficult to recruit sufficient unpaid personnel render special consideration inevitable. But generally speaking, the services should be unpaid. This does not mean that we should have a continuation of the gospel of laisser faire which has resulted in the burning down of the central parts of some of our great cities. If we had insisted upon compulsory unpaid service, if voluntary unpaid service was not forthcoming readily and regularly, we should not to-day have the number of burnt out cities which unfortunately we have. The Select Committee stressed this point in their report, and all I want to say is that many hon. Members on this side regard that aspect as vital, not only from the point of view of national economy, but from the point of view of economy of man-power. There is a very large number of men in the air-raid precautions services who, if we had compulsory unpaid service in their localities, could be freed for other and possibly more important national work.
I agree with the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) that the country is more ready for sacrifice than the Government understand. The acts of heroism by the Civil Defence services, up and down the country, call aloud to the Government to do more to harness the good will that is offered them in winning the war. The Government are apt to


listen too much to the small minority—it may be 5 per cent. or 10 per cent.—whoare crying out against compulsion or any form of regimentation. Let them listen to the voice of our people who are willing to give their all, provided that those who stand out to the last are made to share their responsibility. It is the men and women who will not give in, who force the 90 per cent., or 95 per cent., to say to the Government, "Break this thing and then we will do what you wish." The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth departed a little from what I believe is her principle of trying to be scrupulously fair to Ministers, although she greatly enjoys criticising them. I think she was a little unfair to the Minister of Home Security when she chided him for his lack of moral courage in bringing compulsion into Civil Defence. Surely he is the one Minister who, outside the Armed Forces, has brought compulsion to bear where it is necessary? I agree that it was belated, and I agree that the sight of burnt-out homes and buildings may have helped him in taking that decision, but let us not run away from the fact that there was very considerable opposition, particularly from some of his own political friends, to such a proposal. Therefore, I say, if we are going to size up the moral courage of Ministers, the Minister of Home Security is entitled to stand high on account of the way in which he has brought in the fire-watching Order on a compulsory and unpaid basis.
Whatever criticisms can be levelled at the Civil Defence services, and from day to day and week to week there are many, the fact remains that the services have worked. The services are manned by grand men and women who are devoted to their duty, and are proud of their service. Let us not forget those who have taken part in the administration of Civil Defence during the past two or three years. All the decisions they made were not wrong, although some critics would have us think so. I suggest that had hon. Members known two years ago the extent to which this country was to be raided in the first 21 months of war, scarcely one could have anticipated much less than 500,000 killed among the civilian population. That is a low figure compared with that which many of us would have anticipated. The fact is that there is a minor fraction of that number killed, and the

policy, therefore, although it may not be complete, and although the machine may be groaning and creaking in places, is fundamentally right. I suggest, therefore, that this is not the time to have a complete upheaval, but that it is the time to adjust the administrative machine, which now works passing well, so that it will fulfil our better hopes.

The Minister of Home Security (Mr. Herbert Morrison): My hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) has brought to this Debate the fruits of a considerable period of study, investigation and watching, as a result of the important work he has done as Chairman of an unofficial committee of Members of this House who interest themselves in Civil Defence. I can assure him that what he has said and the points he has raised, particularly his observations and constructive criticisms, will be fully taken into account. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Portsmouth (Sir J. Lucas), who himself has practical experience as a fire fighter, and whose return to the House we welcome after his illness and injury, has spoken out of his own practical knowledge of fire fighting. He has made a series of important points of detail with regard to that organisation, to which, he may be sure, I and my colleagues will give every consideration. Hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate will forgive me, I know, if I do not deal with all the many points of considerable detail which, quite properly, have been raised. A note has duly been taken of those points of detail, and investigation and proper consideration will be given to them.
I want, as I expect the House would anticipate and expect, to deal with the broader issues of structure and policy in this vital field which have been raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), who opened the Debate, and other hon. Members. Issues have been raised in an important Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which deal with the structure of the organisation, including various proposals to cut down Civil Defence and reduce full-time establishments. The Report was in the main, I think, the work of the energetic Chairman of the Sub-Committee concerned, namely, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), who brought the Report of the Sub-Committee


before the main Committee. It included all these proposals as to machinery and administration, and the question of whether in some Departments or another, full-time personnel, including the warden departments was not excessive. In all parts of the House, whether the speeches have been critical of the Minister or friendly—I do not say the criticism is unfriendly, because this is not politics, but administration, and there is no politics in it; indeed, it is undesirable that there should be—members have referred to the courage, indeed the heroism, the skill, and ability which have been displayed by the members of the Civil Defence Services. This army of Civil Defence people, the vast majority of whom are unpaid, volunteer, and spare-time, is extraordinarily typical of the character, the spirit, courage, and the grit of the British people, fighting at times with their backs to the wall. They are mixed people, with no long military traditions, and no great background of discipline behind them; they are of all shapes and sizes, of all degrees, of different psychology, and, may I say, of different degrees of beauty and handsomeness as well. They are really a typical representative body of the population of the country, and I think the country can be proud of this great army of Civil Defence. I keep trying to estimate what the numbers are, and I do not know, but it has grown and grown until recently the fire-bomb fighters have extended their ranks by somewhere in the region of 2,000,000 to 2,500,000. I suppose now that all the people involved in Civil Defence one way or the other—full-time, part-time, paid and unpaid—must number nearly 4,000,000 citizens, and that is the conclusive answer to the German and Italian propaganda, which said that the British were degenerate, because these are the ordinary people of all sections and classes of the community, and they have stood by in days and hours and nights of grave danger and they have stuck to their job in a way which will rightly earn the praise of history in the future.
I come to the first main point of controversy. It is not political controversy in any party sense. It is not even controversy as between Members who are in the Government and Members who are out of it. But before actually dealing with that point of the central machinery of

government, I think the House will agree with me that we can be proud of the social provision which we have made for our people as a consequence of enemy attack. I should say that, of all the people who have experienced enemy attack from the air, this country has made the best social provision of any for families and individual citizens as a consequence of enemy attack. It can be said—and we of the Government are proud of it—that there is no destitution as a result of air raids. Homes may be blown up, families may be scattered and furniture may be destroyed, but we have made up our minds from the beginning that there should be no destitution as a result of enemy attack, and there is not.
There may be argument as to the degree of provision but, broadly speaking, we can boast of the fact that there is no destitution as the result of these attacks from the air. We have provided as a community and the House has supported us, new homes, alternative homes, or accommodation for the homeless who have been bombed out and blitzed out. We have provided through the Assistance Board grants to replace cash necessities, clothing, furniture, and essential household articles. We have made financial provision for grants to replace even essential tools for workpeople in their employment or small handicrafts men in their work, and we have made provision for first-aid repairs to houses. Likewise there has been carried through a vast evacuation of school children. As to how far it has gone among all ages and sections of the community, there is some criticism, but there it is, a vast piece of social administration and transformation, which on the whole has gone with a high degree of smoothness; even in the nursery provision, which is growing, and as to which there is comment and discussion, nevertheless it is a big thing.
If we consider also the people who have been bombed out of their houses or whose gas, electricity and water supply has gone, the community, through the appropriate organ of State or municipal administration, has seen to it that, although there is no gas, electricity or water, something has been done about it. Communal feeding has been provided, water supplies have been arranged for and so on. It is right and necessary that


these things should have been done, but let even the House of Commons not hesitate to pause and praise itself, the Government and the local authorities for rising to the occasion. I doubt whether there is another country in the world which has been as successful as we have been in making social provision against the consequences of air attack. So it is that while Hitler destroys, we build. While he is concerned with the destruction of human life, we are concerned with the conservation of human life and the repairing of damage. Hitler destroys, we build, and we can be proud of the administrative and organising genius of our people in all classes of life and in all the fields of public administration. Not, of course, for the perfection that we have achieved—we have not achieved perfection, not a Minister on this Bench has achieved perfection, and not another Member, including the Noble Lady, who might have sat upon this Bench, would have achieved perfection. Nevertheless, we can all claim, whether we are private Members or Ministers or local authorities, when it is considered that air attack is a first-class action of war, that the bombs have a horribly destructive effect, that the next morning is not a picnic, that it is really the morning after the night before —in the case of a battle in the field generals and commissioned and non-commissioned officers are faced with all sorts of disturbing problems—with all our imperfections we can say, broadly speaking, that our British capacity for adaptability in times of difficulty has stood up pretty well to these grave and difficult circumstances.
The first point with which I want to deal is the point which has been urged in a number of quarters, and which was raised in a tentative way by the Select Committee on National Expenditure, that we should have a concentration of all national Civil Defence functions in one State Department to be known as the Ministry of Civil Defence. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock himself argued the case as he saw it for that view and put it in a way which I think is representative of the body of public opinion which takes that view. I am very anxious not to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman's scheme or the arguments which have been put forward by various people inter-

ested in public administration and certain organs of the Press which have taken this point of view. As I understand it, the argument is that it would be well and right and proper if all State administration concerned with Civil Defence and with the preparation for blitzes and the consequences of blitzes were concentrated in one single Department of State, and if one Minister, with such assistance in the way of Parliamentary Secretaries and staff as was necessary, were responsible for the administration of the whole field of Civil Defence. Such a step would remedy the admitted dispersion of different functions which have a relation to Civil Defence over a number of other Departments. My hon. Friend himself said that there were four Ministers taking part in this Debate. That is true, and I hope that they will do as well as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education did in speaking first for the Government to-day. I will go further than that. There are not only four Ministers concerned in this business. I do not know the number, but taking the thing in its widest sense there may be 12 Ministers involved; there may be 15. The number is unknown. I should say that every Minister, apart from those of the Service Departments, is in some degree or another concerned in Civil Defence.
Therefore, run to its extreme the argument takes us a long way. I do not want to take my hon. Friend further than would be reasonable even on his own argument, but it could be taken to the point that if an aircraft factory were damaged by enemy attack, its repair should be the function of the Ministry of Home Security and not of the Ministry of Aircraft Production. I do not suggest that my hon. Friend would argue that for a moment. Obviously, it is best that the factories of the Ministry of Aircraft Production should be repaired by their owners in association with the Ministry of Aircraft Production. The same is true of the factories of the Ministry of Supply and of the Admiralty. Therefore, it would not be fair to try and run the argument as far as that point. Let us see how far it does run. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is the authority for evacuation, broadly speaking. If it gets to the widest issues the question of national security


comes in, but as a Government Administrative agency my right hon. Friend is the authority on evacuation. Why is that? It is because directly you move the population about in big numbers you want housing accommodation. Housing is the first thing, because the people must live somewhere, and my right hon. Friend is the housing Minister Similarly, it involves sanitary services, sewage, drainage, water and so on. Therefore, directly you get an organised big-scale movement of the civil population you become involved in nearly every department of public health administration.
This means that if I, as Minister of Home Security, were the evacuating authority, I should be faced in the field of housing, sanitary services, water and education with the issue of trying to be self-reliant upon those services—and the doctrine of my hon. Friend is that I ought to be completely self-reliant—in which case I should be involved in the necessity of taking from the Minister of Health, the President of the Board of Education, and I do not know how many other right hon. Friends, a whole series of parts of their functions but not the whole of their functions. Let me take the example of hospitals. That, of course, is related immediately to Civil Defence. Can I cut the hospitals of the Ministry of Health in two? There is still a lot of people who become ill without the enemy making them ill or injuring them. There is still an enormous number of illnesses with which Hitler has nothing to do. Is my right hon. Friend to retain such hospitals or such parts of hospitals as are required for illnesses that might happen in peacetime, and am I to take hospitals or parts of hospitals for illnesses or injury due to the action of the enemy? That is the real doctrine behind this argument. How can you cut hospitals or medical administration in two? The whole of this business of evacuation and hospital services goes to the roots of general public health administration.

Dr. Guest: My right hon. Friend asked how hospital administration can be cut in two. It is already cut in two. The Emergency Medical Services, which include most of the hospitals, provide hospital accommodation for the soldier because he is a soldier, and they can provide accommodation for those who are

bombed or injured. It would be the most economical and convenient thing to do. All these people could go into an Emergency Medical Service hospital and be treated as emergency medical service casualties.

Mr. Morrison: This is where my hon. Friend goes absolutely wrong. It is the result of the theoretician getting into practical difficulties. Curiously enough, it is the case—and I do not blame my hon. Friend for not knowing, because I did not know until this moment—that the military, precisely because of the artificial distinctions between the bed that is occupied by a soldier, the bed that is occupied by a peace-time casualty and the bed occupied by a civilian who has been injured by the enemy, has asked the Minister of Health to take back quite a number of the hospitals because he can do the work better. The War Office think that, and it is common sense too. After all, what is a bed but a bed? If a doctor is attending a human being and that human being is a civilian—perhaps a middle-class person living in Streatham or Edgbaston or somewhere like that—or if he is a soldier, what does it matter? He needs a doctor. The doctor is not interested. He is a man of science, a man of medical skill and an instrument of healing. He will heal anybody, even wicked people. He is interested in the healing of human beings. It is sickness, injury and damage to human beings with which we are concerned, and if anybody holds out to me the prospect of getting together a skeleton body of doctors to run my hospitals, which would be run for the purpose of repairing people damaged by air attack, of my right hon. Friend running hospitals for the ordinary diseases of peace-time, and of somebody else running them for another purpose, the House has only to think for a moment to realise what that would mean.

Dr. Guest: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is wrong about hospital administration. He does not know, and apparently the Minister of Health does not know either. The Emergency Medical Service hospitals are run by the Ministry of Health and they have an account with the War Department for soldiers who are taken in. I am suggesting that people injured in air attacks should likewise be taken in under a national scheme run by the Ministry. I am not suggesting


two sets of hospitals and a skeleton body of doctors, whatever that may mean.

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, my hon. Friend has gratuitously entered into a battle between me and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. I am debating a point he made in his opening speech and which occurred in the Report of the Select Committee. I would concentrate all the doctors under one Department as far as possible.—[An hon. member: "Including Service doctors? "]—As far as possible, I said. I assure my hon. Friend opposite that if there is any chance of my having a band of doctors over a certain field of hospital administration and of public health administration, and my right hon. Friend having a rival set of doctors, he being stirred up by his doctors and me by mine to have medical arguments with each other, I say, "Not for me." The administration of hospitals should be under one Department, and the question is what is the proper Department. I think it is my right hon. Friend's. If it is a question, as my hon. Friend would suggest, of my right hon. Friend exchanging accounts with the War Office, that is easy. The Ministry of Health have experience and know about hospital administration in the ordinary way, and it is absolutely right that they should do it.
Let me make this prophecy. If I were to adopt the advice, and His Majesty's Government were to adopt the advice, that all these health and medical functions that relate to Civil Defence and the attack of the enemy from the air should be cut off from my right hon. Friend, and the school medical services cut off from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education to be handed to me, believe me that within three months—I am sure of it, I know history—there would be letters, particularly to the "Times," and to the weekly reviews, urging, with editorial support, that these artificial divisions, splitting up all the public health and hospital services of the country, were a positive disgrace, which could only be the result of the nit-witted actions of nit-witted Ministers in a nit-witted Government. We should have to surrender and go back to the way we were. I hope and believe I have convinced the House on that point.

The same is true of public assistance. This public assistance machine, from my own experience, is no longer the old Poor Law machine of Mr. Bumble. I have seen one intelligent local authority after the other, and the Ministry of Health as it developed its administration, lifting the public assistance administration out of the old tradition into a modern department of social administration. That public assistance machine, taking it by and large, with all its imperfections, has done a good job in this trouble. In the L.C.C. we gave the job of the rest and feeding centres to the public assistance chief officer; it happened that his machine was about the most useful. We gave evacuation to the education officer. I do not see why we should have done so, except that he deals with children, but there are other persons than children concerned in evacuation. That public assistance machine in case after case, social aid after social aid, has done a great job. It is my right hon. Friend, who is the expert in the Government on public assistance organisation, not I. By accident, I know something about it in the light of municipal but not national experience. If it came to me, but not all of it would, as my right hon. Friend would still hold his Poor Law functions, I should have to duplicate the machine he is setting up.
I have dealt with these two points rather fully. I will only mention the others as far as I know them. Welfare of the homeless is dealt with by the Ministry of Health, because it is the experienced authority, the same with evacuation, rehousing, the Ministry of Health; first-aid repairs, the Ministry of Health, because it knows about these things and works in conjunction with the Ministry of Works and Buildings; disposal of the dead is the function of the Ministry of Health, because it has experience in that line. Sewage repairs and repairs to water undertakings are a matter for the Ministry of Health. There is a number of services which also belong to other State Departments—transport, to the Ministry of Transport. On my hon. Friend's doctrine I ought to deal with damage to railways, but that would be an absurd thing to do. He agrees?

Mr. Lindsay: I do not wish to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but I would like to mention this one point. I am mainly concerned with the regional authority. I


put forward a suggestion which is capable of infinite variation. If my right hon. Friend is talking about the region it is a question of transport, evacuation and the other things being co-ordinated under one officer.

Mr. Morrison: I do not mind the interruption at all. I have got to three items of administration in connection with this doctrine of all Civil Defence under one Ministry of Civil Defence. If I went on, I could go into 30 items probably. My right hon. Friend says, "Do not bother too much about that. Get on to the regional level."

Mr. Lindsay: I must make one interruption. The point concerns the Regional Commissioner, whom my right hon. Friend and I would like, I think, to see embracing the whole field of Civil Defence —perhaps with two Commissioners for a region, as in the case of London. What is becoming of increasing importance is for him to report to six or seven different Ministers in London and to make sense of the situation, because he is already receiving orders from six or seven different Ministers. I do not mind if you have a permanent secretariat and higher officials from each of these seven or eight Ministries, but I do say it is taking up too much time to have all these Ministers— nearly half the Cabinet—meeting three days a week when I think the line of communication is very uncertain.

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend was perfectly right when he said that I ought to consider these matters on the regional level, and I was coming there, but first I wanted properly to demolish his Ministry of Civil Defence. I would only say in passing that I think the Regional Commissioner more or less lives with the regional representatives of all the State Departments concerned. [hon. members: "No."] Yes, certainly.

Sir Harold Webbe (Westminster, Abbey Division): Is the Minister aware that in some cases the representative of the Ministry of Health lives a couple of miles away from the Regional Commissioner?

Mr. Morrison: I think there is about one case in which that is so, and I do not think it is very terrible. I live about a mile from the Board of Education, but that does not prevent my right hon. Friend and me seeing each other from

time to time. In each of these so-to-speak capital cities of the Regional Commissioners, there are represented all the State Departments. Those concerned see each other frequently, some of them every day of the week, and they have regular meetings. On that regional level there is close consultation, and my hon. Friend is right in his later thoughts that it is in the regions that you have the most useful level of consultation and administration. He is absolutely right at that point, and the system is working.
But I want to finish the Ministry of Civil Defence first of all, because that is suggested in the Report of the Select Committee, and the Select Committee must be taken seriously—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham, who is responsible in the main for that Report, with my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) and others would wish me to do so. I have dealt to a great extent with the Ministry of Health side and similar arguments arise in other fields. They arise on the question of repairs to roads, which is a matter for the Ministry of Transport, although the Ministry of Home Security comes in somewhere I think. Traffic control is a joint matter for the police and Ministry of Transport. Demands for transport by road and rail are properly a Ministry of Transport matter. Then there is the question of Post Office communications, which frequently get damaged, and the Ministry of Transport and the Post Office are, of course, both involved. The emergency feeding arrangements are a vital Civil Defence service of the Ministry of Food. Similarly they are very helpful in the matter of the feeding of the shelterers, and to some extent they have relations with the feeding of the Civil Defence personnel.
Taking into consideration all the complexities of food distribution, and having regard to the fact that we already have the vast and complicated machine of the Ministry of Food in existence, if we were to cut part of that work off and merge it into the Ministry of Home Security, saying "This is a Civil Defence part and the other is a normal part," it would be an act of midsummer madness. There is that great machine already in existence to handle the problem of the distribution of food all over the


country. If I am to jump in and to do part of its work we shall have a chaotic situation. Within a month there would be a demand in this House that food should be under the control of one Minister. So it goes on—with food salvage, food shops, the mobile canteens for civilians, the de-contamination of foodstuffs. The provision of emergency supplies of tobacco comes in under the Board of Trade. Schemes for the relief of distress involve the Assistance Board. The Assistance Board is skilled in this particular work. It knows about it. I do not, and as Minister of Home Security it would take me a long time to become expert, and the same may be said of my officers. Claims for injuries bring in the Assistance Board and the Ministry of Pensions. Information is dealt with by the Ministry of Information. Nobody would suggest that I should take the Ministry of Information into the Ministry of Home Security.

Mr. Lindsay: The Prime Minister is not in charge of the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, and yet he is Minister of Defence.

Mr. Morrison: There are still the Secretary of State for War, the Secretary of State for Air and the First Lord of the Admiralty, and in the same way there are Ministers at the head of these other Departments, and we have our Civil Defence Committee through which we get co-ordination. Indeed, if it were right that all the active fighting should be done by one State Department, we ought not to have the three Departments of Army, Navy and Air. There should be a single Department of Defence, which, indeed, has been argued, but that has not yet been done. To continue my examples, there are repairs to war-production factories, under the emergency services organization run by the production Departments. Repairs to other factories are under the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Works and Buildings. Repairs to shops other than food shops come under the same Departments. Repairs to gas undertakings are under the Board of Trade, because that Department knows about gas undertakings. Salvage of insured commodities is under the Board of Trade, while salvage of raw materials is under the Ministry of Supply, which is

the raw materials Department. General services for emergency repair works are under the Ministry of Works and Buildings, labour supply and unemployment insurance are under the Ministry of Labour while petroleum and voluntary social services are under various State Departments.
I have not mentioned Scotland. What should we do with Scotland under this proposed consolidated Ministry of Civil Defence? If the military analogy is to be carried through, it is clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland should be put almost out of business. There is not a separate Army for Scotland, or an Air Force or a Navy. My right hon. Friend is concerned with police, fire brigades, health services, education and agriculture. Is my hon. Friend who made the suggestion, and who is a Scottish Member, prepared to say that all those functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland should be transferred to me or to some other Minister as Minister of Civil Defence for the whole of Great Britain? [hon. members: "No."] I thought not. I do not think any Scottish Member would agree to the suggestion, and I can be sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock would not fall into that dangerous mistake. I think that has effectively settled the argument. Scotland is only part of Great Britain. If the military analogy is to be carried out, Scotland ought not to be a separate area, and it would not.
There is one other point I would like to mention and it is a matter of history. When the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937, was passed, there was set up, and the Act contemplated it being done, an A.R.P. Department at the Home Office. That Department was conceived, built and administered for a time on this doctrine that the whole of the Civil Defence administration should be in one Department. The result was that in the A.R.P. Department of the Home Office there was a hospital department, a medical department, with a limited number of doctors. The A.R.P. Department concerned itself with the repair of public utilities such as gas, under the Board of Trade, water under the Ministry of Health, and electricity, which is under the Ministry of Transport. It concerned itself also with evacuation. It had a year of experience. The House may believe me or not as it


wishes, and hon. Members may have other opinions, but let me say that at that time I dealt from the London County Council end with that A.R.P. Department at the Home Office, and in the whole of my dealings between municipalities and Whitehall I am bound to say that that was about the worst patch of the lot.

Mr. Gallacher: Do your colleagues agree with you?

Mr. Morrison: It is very embarrassing sometimes—the question of who agrees with whom. It is most surprising when documents are signed between people who, theoretically, have been at war with each other. My hon. Friend knows all about those embarrassing situations. I formed the impression from the outside that that patch of administrative experience was about the worst patch of Civil Defence administration that I know. It was perfectly clear that it was a foolish thing to bring these unfortunate officers of the Home Office—who were a jolly good lot of people, and for whom I have a very great respect—into hospital administration. They were out of their depth. I do not know whether it was a question of depth at all—they were out of their element. To bring them into evacuation was all wrong, it was not in their line of administrative experience, and, therefore, when my right hon. Friend the present Lord President came into office as Lord Privy Seal in November, 1938, he began to make changes. There were indeed demands, not only from the other Departments but from my right hon. Friend, and Members know that when a Minister has got a lot of things in his hands the general theory is that he is the last man who will let go of them. He wants to hold on to power and place and so on, and it might be thought that if I had the chance of having all these powers added to me, I should be an extraordinary person if I resisted, because it would add enormously to my authority. But I want to be a success and not a failure, as I am sure the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) always wants to be a success at every election she fights. On the whole she does very well as a political Parliamentary candidate. I want to succeed just as she does, and I know perfectly well I should fail if I got all these things put on to the Ministry of Home Security as a Ministry of Home Defence. [An hon. member: "No."]

My hon. Friend is perfectly certain I am wrong, but when he has been here a little longer and has seen the machinery of government a little more closely, he may come to the conclusion that I am right.

Viscountess Astor: Did not the right hon. Gentleman feel the same about the fire services, and yet he had to do it?

Mr. Morrison: But I did that of my own volition. Does the Noble Lady think she made me do it?

Viscountess Astor: I certainly do.

Mr. Morrison: If the Noble Lady thinks she persuaded me, or bullied me, or whatever the right word maybe, into nationalising the fire services, believe me, she is quite wrong.

Viscountess Astor: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not perfectly true that when I spoke to him in the Lobby after the first blitz on Plymouth, I said, "I think you have got to do something like this," and he just replied," I think there is something in it," but he had not begun to move then?

Mr. Morrison: If that is intended as proof that the Noble Lady is the true author of the Fire Services (Emergency Provisions) Bill, I have never heard anything more thin. She said, "This is awful, something must be done about it," and therefore claims to be the author of this great Bill which I introduced into the House of Commons. But what does it matter?
Therefore, I take the view that this would be a suicidal policy. It was the case that it was my right hon. Friend, when at the head of those services as Lord Privy Seal, who himself in the light of experience took the initiative, seeing that these functions of Civil Defence are so big and so wide that they spread throughout almost every department of public administration, in doing two things. The function which was related, or most nearly related, to a peace-time function of government should go to that State Department which is experienced in that function of government. The rest, which had no relationship to any existing State Department, which were new or novel or otherwise, he would take himself as Lord Privy Seal or, later, as Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security. As Home Secretary, of course, he already


had the police and fire services, and then he added these rather new and special services that did not naturally tie up with any existing State Department. He did these two things. Where there was a State Department naturally concerned, that Department had it. Where there was no such Department, he had it. There was also established the Civil Defence Committee of the Cabinet, of which he was then the Chairman, for purposes of consultation, co-ordination, friendly discussion and collective decision over the whole field of Civil Defence. If you had your Ministry of Civil Defence, with this vast sphere of services that I have indicated in it—

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Ordered,
That Mr. Hely-Hutchinson be discharged from the Select Committee on National Expenditure and that Miss Ward be added to the Committee."—[Major Dugdale.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Dugdale.]

Mr. H. Morrison: What was it that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council then did? This was done at his wish, and, I imagine, at the wish of the Departmental Ministers concerned, in amity and friendship; and the Civil Defence Committee of the Cabinet came in for the purpose of consultation and coordination. I want to re-emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said. I am almost hesitant to say what a co-operative, friendly body the Civil Defence Committee of the Cabinet is, because I might give the impression that it is a mutual admiration society, a dead sort of body, in which nothing is done. That is not so. There are examination and questioning, and at

times cross-examination, of Ministers, including the chairman. There are discussions upon reports, oral and written reports, from the Departments. If ever I or any other Minister have said at that committee that we should like a report written or oral, about any subject, I have never known any Minister say, "What is it to do with you?" or be sticky about it. Along comes the report, and we discuss it. I do not believe that there has been a single quarrel; and that was true when my right hon. Friend was chairman. That is not because it is a soft kind of body, a sort of freemasonry of Civil Defence; it is a live body. But we feel that we are fellows in trouble, so to speak; we all have our problems, and we put them on the table and try to solve them between ourselves.
Side by side with this threefold problem of the appropriate Department doing its job, the Ministry of Home Security performing its function, and the co-ordinating through the Civil Defence Committee of the Cabinet, my right hon. Friend developed the system of Regional Commissioners. That gave him further and vitally important co-operation and association at the regional level. The Regional Commissioner is a typically British institution. I remember that when my right hon. Friend announced the scheme he was asked whether these Commissioners would be dictators. Some people thought they would. If he had said, "Yes, they will be," he would have been in trouble. It is true that they were potential dictators, in the sense that if communications with the Central Government break down, they will become His Majesty's Government But is was not suggested that they should be dictators. They were typically British. I admit that they do not work to precisely defined functions, under regulations, paragraphs and sections. Come to think of it, the House of Commons does not work to a written Constitution either. Part of its charm is that this British Constitution moves along as it goes. If we had a written Constitution, we should be embarrassed in conducting this war every day of the week. It is a very good thing for us that we have not got a written Constitution, even if its absence has its dangers.
The Regional Commissioner has not his written constitution. I admit that there


is a case to argue that there should be set down in black and white, "A, B, C," "1, 2, 3," the powers, duties, responsibilities, functions and rights of the Regional Commissioner. But if you set them all out, some wise town clerk who got an order from the Regional Commissioner would very soon want to prove, and in my experience very soon would prove, that what the Regional Commissioner wanted him to do under Section 1, Subsection (2), paragraph I (a) he had not the power to do. That would soon be argued, and the Minister would have to settle whether he had the power, and the Law Officers of the Crown might be brought in. That is not the British way of administration. Ours is a looser way. I hesitate to tell the House what one Regional Commissioner said when we were talking about the matter. The Regional Commissioners themselves are not worried about this. They know that it works all right. One Regional Commissioner said that the glory of being the Regional Commissioner, with no definite powers at all, is that "you can jolly well do as you like." And that really is true If he had definite powers, he would be pulled up on legal argument every day of the week. He has not definite powers, but he goes with the authority of His Majesty's Government behind him. That is the great thing. He is appointed, on the submission of the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be, by His Majesty the King. In fact, broadly speaking, the local authorities do what he tells them to do, and they accept his guidance and leadership. They do not ask him what powers he has, because they know that behind him are the Ministers of the Crown, including the Minister of Home Security who can give a direction for the supersession of the local authority if that should not be done.

Mr. Simmonds: But the Home Secretary would admit that leadership is not always conspicuous in the Regional Commissioner. Perhaps he is thinking of the future?

Mr. Morrison: Leadership varies enormously in all ranks of life.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not very difficult for a Regional Commissioner to come to a town that has been heavily blitzed and do anything more than tentatively make suggestions?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that that is so, with great respect to the Noble Lady.

Viscountess Astor: Would the Home Secretary explain to the House why, after the first, second and third blitzes the Regional Commissioners do not come together to formulate some plan to help to save the rest of the country from the horrors of the blitzed towns?

Mr. Morrison: The Noble Lady is speaking without her book. The Regional Commissioners have had several meetings since then. Why does she make these dogmatic statements?

Viscountess Astor: I am asking the question.

Mr. Morrison: The Noble Lady asked why they did not meet. She ought not to make these dogmatic statements. After all, I have a reputation to preserve as well as she has. Why should she say that they have not met when she does not know whether they have met or not? They have met several times since the blitz began. In my Department and at my instructions —and what is true of my Department is true of other Departments —every time a blitz has come we have encouraged regional consultations and so on —[Interruption]—That is true. My hon. Friend must appreciate that it is so. These things have happened. The lessons of the blitzes have been circulated and taken notice of all the time.
Viscountess Astor: I am sorry to interrupt again, but why is it that the Regional Commissioners or the Home Secretary do not ensure more co-ordination between county authorities and borough authorities? If they did, there would not be difficulties about billeting- outside the borough and people trekking to the country and sleeping in lanes.

Mr. Morrison: This is more of the argument from the particular to the general. Neither my Noble Friend nor my hon. Friend opposite ought to do it, because it is a sign of inconsecutiveness in thinking. It is not true; it really will not work. My Noble Friend takes the view which I myself expressed in earlier days when I had less responsibility. It is that the billeting authority outside the borough should be the county council. [An hon. member: "Why not argue that now?"] I cannot argue that now, because it is a


matter for my colleague the Minister of Health. It would be a happy life if I could be in Opposition as well as a Minister of the Crown, as I am sure my hon. Friend opposite would like to be a Minister of the Crown himself as well as on that bench. I did argue this case, and I understand the point of view. My right hon. Friend takes the view that the county council should be used as the co-ordinating authority but that the executive authority should rest with the district council. Because of a difference of opinion it should not be assumed that the whole machinery is wrong and hopeless; as a matter of fact, the Regional Commissioners are typical British institutions and are a success. They move by persuasion, by kindness and by co-operation and have an enormous degree of authority.
Although I have argued the case strongly against the creation of one Ministry for Civil Defence, His Majesty's Government do not close their mind on the matter. If we find that any modification in that doctrine is required, we shall not be afraid to make a modification. We did it in the case of the fire brigades and are in the process of making them a national organisation, but when you come into the field of these other services which are just as much interleaved with various departments of local government administration as other functions of central administration are interlocked with other Departments of State, then we must think twice about our shortage of expert technical and administrative man-power before making any radical changes.

Dr. Guest: Would not my right hon. Friend consider appointing a Committee of the House to investigate this matter in view of the obvious difficulties which have been shown even in his own speech?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir; I think that would be wrong. The machinery of government is the responsibility of His Majesty's Government, and if the House of Commons take the view that the Government's conception of government is all wrong, they have, as always, the remedy. Any Government that tries to pass its responsibility from itself to a Committee of the House is a Government which is unfitted to hold office. Let me give hon. Members an example of regional organisation. I went to Coventry the day after

their heavy blitz. I was not the Regional Commissioner; I was the Home Secretary and the Minister of Home Security. I went there in association with Lord Dudley, Regional Commissioner for that area, and his officers and I did there a job which was typical of the kind of job which a Regional Commissioner does after a blitz. We went to the council offices. The atmosphere there was difficult, but the morale had not gone. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health was with me on that occasion; my Noble Friend the Minister of State came during the day. It was a great experience. The municipality was not broken. It is important that the municipality should not be broken. If it is said to a municipality before a blitz comes, "Remember that when the blitz comes you will be out of it, and the Regional Commissioner or Ministers of State will take over "—if that is said to local authorities before raids come—what will be the effect on them? Inevitably they will say that they need not worry and that they will leave things to the Government and the Regional Commissioner. That is not the basis on which British democracy has been built. There must be self-reliance on the part of the local authorities, as they had it in Coventry the morning after that raid.
They had had a terrible battering. At the council offices, where I saw the mayor, the Chairman of the emergency committee and the officers of the council, I asked myself what that atmosphere reminded me of, for I knew that I had experienced it before. It reminded me of a political headquarters the morning after a general election in which one has experienced a thorough defeat at the polls. It reminded me, for instance, of the office where I worked after the General Election of 1931, when I felt that things were awful, altogether too bad, but when I determined to pick myself up and get ready for the next fight. As near as I can describe it, that was the spirit in Coventry at that time. As both political parties have experienced set-backs, hon. Members will know what I mean.
In the afternoon of that day, we had a meeting in Coventry at which there were present the mayor, the chairman of the emergency committee, the chief officers of the town council, the representatives of Government Departments,


and the Regional Commissioner. We considered the various fields of trouble. We said, "As soon as you can do so, your job is to get on to your feet. Do not be too slow, do not have elaborate committee meetings; give your chief officers their heads; let this officer do that and that officer another thing, let the Minister of Labour do this and another Minister that," and so on. The Army gave us men. The Army have been very decent about these things all the time. I said to the town council, "Do not be afraid of the Army, but treat them as man to man."
What was the result of all this? And let me remind the House that this is the sort of job that the Regional Commissioners have to do, and do better than I was able to do it, because they have surveyed the whole of the ground before the blitz takes place. The result was that we did two things. We brought to the aid of a stricken town all the services of the State and the Departments of the State that were represented immediately on the spot. Then we pulled together with the departments of local government; we pulled together with the forces of the Army. Within an hour we had a team working on the reconstruction of the city of Coventry in the problems which it had to face. That is the sort of thing that has been done in one town after another. The machinery for that co-ordination and pulling together was there, and had not to be invented. It is a machinery that is not to be found within the details of any Act of Parliament or any Order-in-Council. It is a typical expedient that comes from the richness of our administrative experience of dealing with difficulties and problems that cannot be measured and defined. Enemy attacks from the air leave situations that cannot be foretold in actual detail before the event occurs.
Finally, I come to the point of the local authorities. I do not want to press my hon. Friend unduly, but there was a letter of his in the "Times," and an article in the "Times." He took the view that local authorities should wholly, or partly, or largely, go out of this business of Civil Defence, and I must confess I thought his speech supported that, although he said he did not wish to get into that field of controversy. Neither do I, because it is not a real issue, and I do not think it is a practical proposition. What have we done with local authorities? We have

given to the appropriate local authority a function allied to that with which it is familiar in peace-time under its emergency committees and we have added to these duties. The emergency committees are expected to cover the whole field of administration and we are sending a communication out to them to remind them of that. It is important that these committees should not be composed of the most elderly members of the council; local authorities should choose the younger and more energetic men for this work. It has been suggested, and, indeed, I have considered the question, whether we should alter these emergency committees because, for example, they are not bright enough. We can obtain the power to do so by a Defence Regulation, but I am doubtful whether it is wise, because when we have made a change, and said to the local authority, "That lot has got to go, and you must put in another lot," they will be able to put in whom they like, in which case they may be rather awkward.

Mr. Clement Davies: I really do not understand why they should get awkward merely because they do something that is in the national interest.

Mr. Morrison: My hon. and learned Friend is leaving his democratic Liberalism, which can be a very obstinate institution, a long way behind.

Mr. Davies: It is because I am anxious to preserve that democratic principle that I am anxious to do all that is necessary to preserve it, not merely for a temporary period, but for ever.

Mr. Morrison: I quite agree, but I will tell my hon. and learned Friend a story of a Liberal. There was a chap who was told that the time had come for him to make way for a younger man. He said, "Are you telling me to go, because if you are, I am not going? If you are appealing to my sense of duty, I will think about it." Owing to his sense of duty, in due course he went. Is not that typically British, and, if I may say so, typically Liberal? Therefore, if we take power to say who shall do the work, the machine will tend to be resentful, the officers awkward, and the rest of the council difficult. Is it not better to say, "Look here, gentlemen, there is this fault, that fault and the other, and I want


you to put them right." Is that not likely to be the better way? In short, once you begin to tamper with local government, there is no moderate course between that and wiping them out. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, when he was Minister of Home Security, did displace a local authority in their Civil Defence functions, and I agreed with him, and put in a controller. That has succeeded, but we do not want many of these cases. Controllers do not grow on every apple tree. They have to be found.
Moreover there are difficulties about it. You have to fit the new Civil Defence man into the structure of the municipal machine. You can get to the point of saying that the local authority should go out of Civil Defence altogether. It is arguable, but when it is argued there is this to be said, that then you are in precisely the same difficulty as you are in national administration of cutting off parts of the departments of the medical officer, of the education officer, of the public assistance officer, of the borough surveyor, of the town clerk—of all of them in a period when you are faced, not with a superfluity of administrative and technical skill, but a shortage. There fore I was not a bit surprised when I asked the Lord Mayor of Plymouth, "Do you think it would be right for me to supersede your emergency committee?" and he said, "No." [Interruption.] I did not propose to bring the Noble Lady into it, because I did not think it fair to blame the husband for his wife, or the wife for her husband. But I asked the Lord Mayor of Plymouth if it would be right to push them out, and he said, "No." "Would it be wise to displace the local authority as Civil Defence authority?" He said, "No." He is a man of a very different temperament from mine—I admit, a more peaceful person ality—

Viscountess Astor: Tell us what else he said.

Mr. Morrison: I cannot give a verbatim account of it. It would be most embarrassing. It is comes to that, I should not like to give a verbatim account of all that I said to the Lord Mayor, but there was his view, and it is so. I am not going to say that local authorities are perfect. [Interruption.] I hope the Noble Lady

is not going to talk about "passing the buck." I can assure her that that is two-way traffic.

Viscountess Astor: I am willing to take it on.

Mr. Morrison: We will talk about it some day. Local authorities are not perfect, but a lot of them are as near perfect as Governments and Members of Parliament. On the whole, taking it by and large, British local government has nothing much to apologise for. It has risen to the occasion in this war. I shall be accused of spoiling them and being emotional and being afraid of them. I am not afraid of them; I have taken away their fire brigades and have done it perfectly peacefully, and I think it was right. If I had tried it six months before it is probable that the House would have made a great row about it. When I was Minister of Transport I did not hesitate to take the tramways away from the London County Council and put them under the London Transport Board. Knowing local authorities, I know their faults as well as their virtues. I am the last man in the world to be afraid of them. They have their imperfections and their faults, but, taking them by and large, they have done a great job. They have served their country well. In so far as they fail, if I find them corrupt or basically inefficient, I will shift them, order them about, get them on the move, but when suggestions for their destruction come from quarters some of which have not the clearest of records in the democratic struggle, when it comes to uplifting representative institutions for the sake of doing it I am not willing to do it. I believe that, with the imperfections which exist, and to which we will give attention, this great organisation of Civil Defence has done as good a job as any of the Armed Forces of the Crown. The House of Commons can say to Ministers, "We are watching you, we shall be ready to trip you up, to criticise you and push you off, but we are entitled to say, broadly speaking, "We have fashioned a machine between us which has rendered our country a great service in its hour of trial."

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.